Displaying the most recent of 52619 posts written by

Ruth King

Israel vs. Jordan Why Israel needs to be tougher. Mordechai Kedar

Reprinted from en.mida.org.il.

In 1994, Israel signed a peace agreement with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In this agreement, Israel granted “special status” (Article 9) to the Jordanian government on the Temple Mount (‘Muslim Holy Shrines in Jerusalem’). This concession to the Jordanians was totally unnecessary since King Hussein needed peace with Israel more than Israel needed it with Jordan, and a peace agreement was achievable without it. Even ignoring this, what normal country grants another country ‘special status’ in its capital city and in the place most holy to its nation. This special status that recognizes a degree of Jordanian sovereignty on the Temple Mount has been disastrous for Israel and the devastating effects of this blunder have played themselves out once again in the wake of the latest terrorist attack on the Temple Mount, where two Israeli border policeman were killed.

The biggest mistake Israel has made with regard to Jordan is the ‘insurance policy’ it has given to the Hashemite Kingdom for the past 23 years under the baseless assumption that Jordan can deliver on its part. This insurance policy is that Israel would protect the Hashemite Kingdom if in danger of being overthrown, and in turn, Jordan would serve as a buffer zone protecting Israel from the potential dangers threatening it from the east: Iraq falling apart, Iran and the Ayatollahs, ISIS and Al-Qaeda. As a result, the Hashemite Kingdom, whose origins are in Saudi Arabia, continues to rely on the minority Bedouin population to rule the majority Palestinian population, which thus prevents the natural process of Jordan becoming a country which is ruled by the Palestinian majority, or Jordan being split into a Palestinian and Bedouin state.

The continued rule of the Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan and the failure to establish a Palestinian state there is the source of the demand to establish a Palestinian State in Israel’s heartland, which would extend over the Judean and Samarian hills, the ancient homeland and birthplace of the Jewish people. This proposed Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland would have the greater part of Israel in its crosshairs, from just south of Tiberias in the North to Be’er Sheva and Dimona in the South, and along the coastal plains from Haifa in the North to Ashkelon in the South. All of these areas would be well within the range of Palestinian missiles, mortar shells, field intelligence and more. In short, Israel would be establishing a Palestinian state – a strategic threat within its borders – so that it can achieve an uncertain tactical achievement outside of it. Is there any absurdity greater than this?

Israel handling of the security measures it instituted on the Temple Mount vis-à-vis Jordan should have been completely different. Instead of surrendering to Jordanian demands and removing all the security measures, Israel needed to tell Jordan in no uncertain terms: “The terrorist attack on July 14th proves that you are not living up to your obligations concerning the Temple Mount, and thus you have violated the article in the peace agreement that grants Jordan a special status on the Temple Mount, which Israel gave to your father in 1994. Furthermore, regarding , you have one hour to return the Israeli embassy security guard, that defended himself in Amman after being stabbed, unharmed to Israel, and until he is returned Israel will withhold transferring the tens of millions of cubic meters of water that it committed to your father in the peace agreement.” It is the type of message that Israel must convey to the King of Jordan, especially in light of his leading the anti-Israel UNESCO resolution regarding Jerusalem. Israel cannot allow a country that has a peace agreement with it to act that way.

But it’s worse than that.

When Israel placed magnometers and security cameras at the Temple Mount entrance about two weeks ago, the King of Jordan, Abdullah, contacted America and European countries and warned that the security measures Israel implemented on the Temple Mount could potentially undermine his government. Since Jordan has a special status regarding Jerusalem, Israel’s actions will spark the rage of Muslims in Jordan and throughout Middle East against his government, because his inaction to influence Israeli policy on the Temple Mount would be seen by the Muslim world as collaborating with Israel. Therefore, in order for Abdullah to maintain his already unstable government, he demanded that the Israeli government remove the security measures it had recently installed on the Temple Mount. This request is unthinkable, and one wonders how Abdullah musters the chutzpah to demand such a request which implies that Israel should endanger its own police and citizens, so that he can remain secure in the monarchy inherited from his great grandfather who received it illegitimately from the British after World War I.

“The Battle over Jerusalem Has Just Begun” by Bassam Tawil

The Palestinians, feeling triumphant now that Israel has complied with their demand to remove the metal detectors and security cameras, have been clarifying that it is only the first step in their fight to eradicate any Israeli presence in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

They admit that this is a battle over sovereignty on the Temple Mount and Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, the real battle is over who controls Jerusalem and its holy sites. The real battle, in their eyes, is over the Jews’ right to live in their own state in the Middle East. Many Palestinians have still not come to terms with Israel’s right to exist, and that is what this battle is really about.

The Palestinians have added it up just right. In their own words, they aim at an escalation of violence because they believe that what Israel did is the first step toward even more concessions and even further retreat.

The Palestinian “victory” celebrations that took place after Israel removed metal detectors and surveillance cameras from the entrances to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem bode badly for the future of stability and peace in the Middle East.

To the Palestinians and many Arabs and Muslims, the Israeli move is viewed as a sign of weakness. In their eyes, the removal of the security cameras and metal detectors is capitulation, pure and simple.

How do we know this? Easy: look at the Palestinian response. Rather than acknowledging the conciliatory nature of the Israeli government’s decision, aimed at easing tensions and preventing bloodshed and violence, the Palestinians are demanding more.

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the controversy over the Israeli security measures at the Temple Mount, which came after three terrorists murdered two Israeli police officers at the holy site on July 14, is part of a larger battle with Israel.

We have reached a new level in this discourse: Palestinian Authority (PA) officials are now openly admitting that it is not the metal detectors or security cameras that are at issue.

Instead, they admit, this is a battle over sovereignty on the Temple Mount and Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, the real battle is over who controls Jerusalem and its holy sites. The real battle, in their eyes, is over the Jews’ right to live in their own state in the Middle East. Many Palestinians have still not come to terms with Israel’s right to exist, and that is what this battle is really about.

The Palestinians, feeling triumphant now that Israel has complied with their demand to remove the metal detectors and security cameras, have been clarifying that it is only the first step in their fight to eradicate any Israeli presence in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

No one explained this Palestinian position better than the PA foreign minister, Riad Malki, who announced on July 27 that the Palestinians consider the Israeli decision to dismantle the metal detectors and security cameras as surrender. He also confirmed what many Israeli and Palestinian political analysts have been saying for the past few weeks — that the conflict over Israel’s security measures was merely an excuse used by the Palestinians to force Israel to make political and territorial concessions.

In a speech before the Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo, Malki explained: “The issue is not metal detectors or cameras, but who is in charge and who has sovereignty over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.” Malki went on to explain that the Palestinians do not see the recent conflict as a security issue, but rather as a purely political matter. “The battle over Jerusalem has just begun,” he said, adding that the wave of Palestinian protests over the Israeli security measures had succeeded in “thwarting” Israel’s “conspiracy” to change the historical and legal status quo at the Temple Mount.

Europe: The Censored Film They Do Not Want You to See by Stefan Frank

The way WDR broadcast it, however, was unique: at the beginning of the film and in brief intervals throughout, warning signs were inserted again and again, indirectly urging viewers not to believe what they saw in the film.

The film is not about anti-Semitism among neo-Nazis; it is about its acceptance by the mainstream mass media, politicians, left wingers, Muslim “Palestine” activists, rappers and church organizations.

“France is the Western country with the highest number of Jews murdered in the 21st century. Fourteen people were killed because they were Jews. All of them were killed by Muslims, not by right-wing extremists. ARTE would never want its viewers to find that out. The filmmakers… exposed the lies and thereby ARTE’s false narrative.” — Jean Patrick Grumberg, editor, French language news website Dreuz.

A Franco-German film that no one in Europe is allowed, by law, to see has become the source of a major scandal, and its creators the targets of unprecedented smear and hate campaigns from Germany’s public broadcasters.

At the center of the scandal are two of Europe’s biggest media companies, the Westdeutsche Rundfunk (WDR) — with 4,500 employees and an annual budget of 1.4 billion euros — and the Franco-German culture channel, ARTE.

The television documentary, “Chosen and Excluded – the Hate for Jews in Europe”, will be shown in the United States for one night only, on August 9. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles announced that it would screen the film after the German and French networks tried “to bury the documentary, before it could contaminate the viewing public with the truth,” according to the Center’s Associate Dean, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, in an interview with Gatestone Institute. “It is a film that needs to be viewed by anyone concerned about anti-Semitism and anyone concerned about the democratic future of Europe. It is a truth-telling, and ‘PC’-busting documentary”, he said.

The truth is that in today’s Europe, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell the truth.

ARTE had commissioned the film with the support of the WDR, but is now seeking to hide it. The film is not about anti-Semitism among neo-Nazis, but about its acceptance by the mainstream mass media, politicians, left wingers, Muslim “Palestine” activists, rappers and church organizations. Initially, it was said that the film was “a provocation”, that it “fans the flames”, and that “because of the terror situation in France, it cannot be broadcast.”

Later, “technical journalistic shortcomings” were cited as the reason why the film could not be released from the hazardous materials closet.
Murderers of Jews as Honorary Citizens

ARTE, as part of its programming, broadcasts films such as “The Little Stone Thrower of Silwan” — a report sympathizing with sweet Arab children in Jerusalem who just want to make their neighborhood “Jew-free”.

Would the station ever show a serious film about anti-Semitism?, Gatestone asked the journalist Jean Patrick Grumberg, editor of the French language news site Dreuz. Grumberg replied:

“France is a country in which Communist mayors celebrate Palestinian murderers of Jews as honorary citizens. If the directors of ARTE France had even been suspected of harboring pro-Israel or conservative sentiments, they never would never have been hired. Being radical, though, is welcomed.”

According to Grumberg, journalists in France are “almost unanimously anti-Israel.” Anyone who is pro-Israel must conceal it, or deal with the threat of repercussions.

“In this incredible environment, the TV channels France Television and ARTE are the worst among the Islamo-liberals. Initially, the French program management team refused even to countenance the production of a documentary about anti-Semitism in Europe because they were well aware that Muslim antisemitism would come up — a subject that is taboo in France, especially among those on the Left and in the media.

“You have to bear in mind that France is the Western country with the highest number of Jews murdered in the 21st century. Fourteen people were killed because they were Jews. All of them were killed by Muslims, not by right-wing extremists. ARTE would never want its viewers to find that out.”

In France, the pressure was too strong to resist. ARTE Germany, however, was prepared to implement the project. But, says Grumberg, ARTE then learned that the filmmakers, Joachim Schroeder and Sophie Hafner, “had taken this farther than merely condemning the hatred of Jews among European Muslims.”

“The filmmakers had conducted research on the anti-Israel agitation by NGOs financed by the European Union, and exposed the fictitious media narrative by investigating whether there were any grounds for the allegations against Israel in the West Bank and Gaza. There were none. They exposed the lies and thereby ARTE’s false narrative.”

Censorship and Smear Campaign


The month began with celebrations on the birth of our nation and ended with the death of little Charlie Gard. July 4, 1776 began a revolution that led to a Republic of a free and independent people. Charlie Gard became a metaphor for an intrusive state where life and death decisions are made by courts, not parents. The question was never would Charlie survive, but where and when would he die? While it was the English court system that determined how and when his death would come, we in the U.S. are moving inexorably in the same, leftward direction. This is a debate that will not, and should not, go away.

The last day of the month marked the centennial of the start of the 100-day battle at Passchendaele (the Third Battle of Ypres), which became a grim symbol of war’s folly. A half million soldiers became casualties over those weeks on Flanders Field. When the battle was over, the front lines had barely budged. “I died in hell – (They called it Passchendaele),” wrote Siegfried Sassoon, in his poem “Memorial Tablet.”[1]

Like every month, much happened during July. Chancellor Angela Merkel hosted the G20 in Hamburg, a gathering that brings together world leaders, hopefully to ease tensions. After thirty-seven months of ISIS control, the city of Mosul was re-taken by Iraqi forces. In the meantime, ISIS terrorists established a new beachhead in the Philippines by laying siege to Marawi, a city of 200,000. North Korea launched two more ICBMs, showing the U.S. may not be safe, should Kim Jong Un decide to attach a nuclear warhead to an ICBM. Is he testing the Trump Administration, or is he testing the West? Mr. Trump replaced his chief of staff, Reince Priebus with John Kelly, a necessary step given persistent leaks and a lack of discipline in the White House. Mr. Priebus had been Chair of the Republican National Committee, while Mr. Kelly had been Secretary for Homeland Security and before that a four-star Marine Corps General. The attempt to repeal and replace ObamaCare failed, demonstrating that an entitlement, once granted, is almost impossible to take away – at least until Washington runs out of “other people’s money.”

Republicans failed to pass health reform; their efforts resembled an uncoordinated, undisciplined Newfoundland puppy chasing his tail in an open field. But Republicans should not lose sight of what has been accomplished. In his first 100 days, Mr. Trump signed 13 Congressional Review Acts, nullifying unnecessary regulations and preventing agencies from reissuing them. He signed 30 Executive Orders, reducing powers of the Executive. Congress enacted 28 new laws.

The biggest news from my perspective – and one whose effects are nebulous, but may be long lasting – is the continuing attempt to destroy the Trump Presidency. Debate is integral to democracy, but when disagreements descend into venality chaos ensues, and nihilism results. We have even seen public calls for Mr. Trump’s assassination. While there is no question that Mr. Trump can be his own worst enemy, the forces aligned against him are as ruthless as they are relentless. Mr. Trump’s habit of spontaneous tweeting does not serve him, though his desire to speak directly to the American people is understandable. It has become difficult to separate real news from fake news. Will Attorney General Sessions and Secretary of State Tillerson resign, or is that simply a wish on the part of those who would disrupt the Presidency? What, for example, was the role of Fusion GPS, a Washington-based opposition research firm, in the Russian allegations? Who hired Glenn Simpson, its founder, to put together a “hit-job” on Mr. Trump? Why did Democrats in Congress retreat from demanding Donald Trump and Paul Manafort testify in a public forum, when they learned Mr. Simpson would be required to do so as well?

The Ideological Path to Submission Mark Tapson

As the founder of Mantua Books, Howard Rotberg has published works by such important writers as FrontPage Mag’s own editor Jamie Glazov, Giulio Meotti, Diane Weber Bederman, Gustavo Perednik, and David Solway, among others. Rotberg is the author himself of four books, including TOLERism: The Ideology Revealed, and now The Ideological Path to Submission:…and what we can do about it.

Mr. Rotberg agreed to expound upon his important new book in an email interview with FrontPage Mag.

Mark Tapson: Can you briefly explain tolerism and denialism and how are they propelling the West down the path toward submission to Islam?

Howard Rotberg: Tolerism is the term I came up with to describe the ideology of excessive tolerance, actually a leniency, given to those who themselves are intolerant and illiberal and who, if they obtain power, would want to end all tolerance. Tolerance is of course a term relating to something negative: we say we “tolerate” pain not pleasure. Explaining the full nature of Tolerism was the goal of my previous book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed. I sought to explain how Tolerism tolerates the slow ascendancy of Islamist values of terrorism, breach of human rights and attempted reversals of the wonderful liberties and advances made in western societies, where church and state have been successfully separated, and an enormous degree of freedom reigns. Unfortunately it is the Left that leads this process of Tolerism, as it is the Left that is most contemptuous of traditional Western values.

My new book seeks to explore how tolerism and its related ideologies, are beginning, in the West, to create a submission to the anti-liberal values of the Islamists, and an advocacy of some kind of group rights as more important than our historical individual rights. These ideologies include Inclusive Diversity, Empathy, Denialism, Masochism, Islamophilia, Trumpophobia, Cultural Relativism, Postmodernism and Multiculturalism.

The term Denialism is meant to indicate that the individual psychological mechanism of denial to deal with anxieties and fears has now morphed into a culture-wide ideology. Tolerism and denialism are linked in that toleration of evil or facts that might well result in the creation of a great evil, is to show a denial of the danger of the evil or the facts that might create the evil.

How brazen this has become is to study the facts for the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the American embassy in Benghazi Libya. Despite their knowledge to the contrary and despite the facts that were sure to come out eventually, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denied that this was in fact an organized terrorist attack, and attempted to frame it as a spontaneous reaction against a little-seen anti-Islam video by an American Coptic Christian.

This denialism became part of the reason that Americans tolerated Obama’s disastrous Islamist-appeasing foreign policy and his moral relativism and moral equivalency between American and Islam and led to his re-election. As to Hillary, the near unanimous favorite of American media in the next election, she stated before a Congressional investigation “What difference does it make?” to the important question of whether this was an organized terrorist attack. Only members of an Administration (and its near-unanimous supporters in media and in universities) in absolute denial of the Islamist terrorist threat and the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood and its related organizations, and a Secretary of State whose closest aide was a Saudi with links to the Muslim Brotherhood could deny that facts about Benghazi do not make a “difference.”

And when reality does win out in the end, the denialists often turn to the tactic of blaming others, whether it was that Coptic filmmaker in the case of Benghazi or Israel in the case of the first front in the Islamist war against the West.

MT: One of the most heated arguments in discussions of Islam is whether there is a distinction between Islam and Islamism. Can you elaborate on the relationship between the two as you see it?

HR: Just because the Turkish Islamist Erdogan says there is only one Islam, and there is no “moderate” Islam, and he in his repression and hostility to neighbours represents it, does not mean we have to believe him. The distinction I make, following in the footsteps of Daniel Pipes, between Islam and Islamism is fundamental to my book. It is central to any hope that we might have of defeating the Islamists world-wide and those who have already become citizens in the West.

I use the term “Islamism” to describe the ideology of members of Radical Islam – and those who are complicit with them – who believe that the West must “submit” to Islam and who use violence and other illegal acts, and who define “Jihad” as an outer-directed struggle to create a restored Caliphate, rather than an inner-directed struggle for goodness; and who believe in Daar Al-Islam, meaning that once a territory is ruled by Islam it must never be ruled by anyone else, (and hence Israel and Spain, as two examples, must return to Islamic control), and who believe that wherever Muslims settle they should be governed by Sharia Law rather than the secular law of the land.

Islam is a religion with various problems in its Holy books that must be reformed or interpreted so that illiberal and hateful aspects be removed. Islamism is the powerful movement that seeks to use those very illiberal aspects to control their own people and wage an asymmetrical war against the West and implement Sharia Law in a world-wide Caliphate, enforcing submission to its dictates. Like so much of what passes for politics, it is a game all about power. It is time to stop the denial that the situation is otherwise.

We must overcome our denial and our psychological fantasies that cause us to think we can control Islamism. The only way to do it, is to overcome our reluctance to tell people of religion that certain matters will not be tolerated in the West; from honour killings to female genital mutilation, to strict Sharia Law enforcement for crimes, it is time to declare, courageously and unapologetically that we welcome as immigrants only those willing to be part of a reformed Islam – without the barbaric cultural practices that should have been left in the Middle Ages. It is not our fault that Islam has developed in such a way that it is threatening our freedoms, but it is our duty to plainly distinguish Islamism from Islam and act to defeat Islamism

But to be clear, it is up to Muslims to reform themselves if they wish to participate in Western political culture; people like me cannot do it for them. We can reasonably expect Muslim immigrants to the West to pledge allegiance to our Constitutions and confirm that taking up residence in the West means that where Sharia law and our Constitutions conflict, they will be loyal to our Constitutions.

I understand the many bloggers and commentators who argue that Islam itself contains the seeds of Islamism; but we cannot wage war against more than a billion people practicing Islam who are not a direct threat to us. In my opinion, we must acknowledge the way that the Islamist enemy feeds off of Islam, but while in theory we could starve the Islamists by attacking their food source, and attack all Muslims, in practice that is very wrong. The most important point, however, is that we are in a war with Islamism and while we did not ask for that war, it is time to fight to win. Non-Islamist Muslims must show us that they have no support for the Islamists, do not look to them as a source of imams or any direction; otherwise in war, we might have to deport people who have chosen to support the enemy rather than us.

MT: How are “fun and foolishness” inhibiting us from seriously addressing the threat that jihad poses to our values?

HR: This relates to our failure to accept that Islamism has declared war on the West and that 9/11 was our generation’s Pearl Harbor. I am particularly critical of Barack Obama with his frequent need to have fun golfing even during times of domestic or foreign crisis, and see this as indicative of a worrisome cultural trend.

In the book, I look carefully at our cultural values, and trace how over the past 50+ years, our culture has begun to emphasize having fun as a major cultural goal. This is a shift from traditional now-ignored values, such as doing one’s duty, patriotism, getting satisfaction from hard work, worshipping in church or synagogue, and living within our means both as individuals and on a national level. I find an emphasis on fun somewhat troubling in an era when the West is clearly facing a crisis brought on domestically by over-spending, and internationally by the terrorist war by Islamism for Western submission to Islamist values and influence.

Our children spend countless hours in the fun of video games and internet chatting. What education our children do receive is meant to be fun and is meant to teach them that there can be education without values, respect without being respected and tolerance without being tolerated. It is more fun for the teachers to avoid the whole issue of values and pretend that it is possible to separate values and ideology from informed discussions.

Moreover, if we appear in the West to be focused only on fun, those Islamists who enjoy jihad more than fun can easily surmise that they have a good chance of winning, and making a world-wide Caliphate when their opposition is too busy having fun to take up arms in defense of their own liberty.

MT: How is what you call “the sad ideology of inclusive diversity,” which is especially rampant in our universities, contributing to our cultural submission?

HR: What saddens me most, as a son of a Holocaust survivor, is that inclusive diversity as a leftist goal, means that in 1940 we should have allowed Nazis to immigrate and we should have accepted their diversity as part of our strength. I don’t see a lot of difference between the Islamists and the Nazis and neither should be welcomed here.

In the book, I discuss Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his reliance on the idea of “Inclusive diversity” being his idea of the most important Canadian value. With respect to tolerance, he even says we should be so welcoming to poorly vetted Islamic refugees, that we must go “beyond tolerant” in what we should do for them. I ask, “Should we welcome evil ideologies as part of our inclusive diversity? Do we think that a nice Canadian welcome, together with conduct and words not just tolerant, but beyond tolerant, will turn intolerant jihadists (or those average Muslims who are used to supporting a leadership which is composed of intolerant jihadists) into tolerant Canadians?”

Trudeau, who recently graced the cover of a fawning Rolling Stone magazine is not aware that giving “rights and choices” to some illiberal people may deprive existing liberal citizens of their rights and choices. Trudeau’s support for what he calls “inclusive diversity” is based on the flawed concept in multiculturalism that all cultures are equal. He believes that diversity is a goal in itself, and like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, we must respect and admire our enemies, the Islamists. Prime Minister Trudeau now seemingly believes, that tolerating those with illiberal opinions, is not enough; we must give them “understanding” and a special place for their choices in our public realm. Unfortunately, Inclusive Diversity does not distinguish, at least in Trudeau’s mind, between Islam and Islamism. Inclusion of the Islamists is a bad idea, and one only possible when the prevailing ideology is a Tolerism heading to a Submission.

Most troubling of all, the naive philosophy of inclusive diversity has been adopted at a time that our universities have gone stupid in their adoption of postmodern idiocy. I quote Professor Philip Salzman of McGill University, about the many universities that “have established ‘equity and inclusiveness’ committees to oversee ‘just practice,’ to disseminate ‘correct’ views through literature, posters, and re-education workshops, in some cases mandatory. They also sanction faculty members who express unacceptable views. Schools of education ensure that their graduates will be inculcating their school pupils in the principles of ‘social justice,’ and in identifying the deplorable ‘multiphobes’ in their families and communities. American schoolchildren have been taught by teachers determined to discredit America, that slavery was an American invention and existed exclusively in America — a staggeringly counter-factual account.”

Making diversity a moral end in itself, making capitalism into the cause of inequality, and “hurt feelings” the criteria for permitted speech, the young totalitarians learn that any opposition to their social justice opinions is evil or racist or fascist.

Inclusive diversity of the Islamists is a bad idea, and one only possible when the prevailing ideology is a Tolerism heading to a Submission.

MT: You devote a chapter to Trumpophobia and “resistance.” What is the danger in those phenomena, in terms of our conflict with Islam?

HR: A phobia, it must always be remembered, is an irrational fear. I don’t accept the term Islamophobia, because firstly, it is not irrational to fear the terrorism, anti-gay, anti-woman and anti-Christian and anti-Israel aspects of almost all Muslim-majority countries. But even if one can live with the use of the term phobia to describe something that is mostly rational, I believe that since the enemy is not all Muslims but just those who are Islamists or support Islamism, the term should really be changed to Islamistphobia.

The Islamists and their allies on the left have been successful in using the term Islamophobia as a sword to gain special privileges and enhance their political and cultural power. Now, the Islamists, understanding that America’s foundational values are under attack from within, show unrestrained glee, together with their allies on the Left, in their “resistance” to Trump. This resistance started the day after his inauguration as huge numbers of women marched in opposition to the will of the American people. They were organized in doing so by Linda Sarsour, the Islamist who lately advocated a Jihad against President Trump. In the book, I try to show that the self-hatred that conduces to support for Islamists, not only in America, but especially in countries like Germany and Sweden, where guilt over past crimes during the Nazi era seems to be assuaged by embracing a future in Eurabia, where no distinction is made between Islam and Islamism, leaving the countries open to submission.

I write about the New York Times, which despite apologizing for its profoundly one-sided coverage of the election, immediately after the inauguration started the same nonsense. Thomas Friedman, having had most of his opinions rejected by the American people through their election of Trump, wants to override that democracy by “A Plea to America’s Business Leaders” asking them “to do a job that you have never thought of doing before: saving the country from a leader with a truly distorted view of how the world works and role America should play in it. “Now, to people who have actually studied Fascism, it is immediately apparent that Friedman’s call for big business to ally with leftists to overrule the wishes of the American people is about as Fascist as one can get.

In the book, I note that the Trumpophobic resisters immediately started a quest to overthrow their President. The American comedian, Sarah Silverman, actually tweeted, “Wake up and join the resistance, once the military is with us, the fascists get overthrown.” Former Secretary of Labor, under Bill Clinton, Robert Reich has been spending large amounts of time writing about how to “resist” the Trump White House, and is especially interested in counselling federal employees, who should uphold the policies of the President, how to resist them.

The vile Georgetown University Islamist, Nathan Lean, (director of research for the Pluralism, Diversity and Islamophobia project at Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding) actually called for a “public uprising” to overthrow Trump. It seems to me that when the apologists for Islamism start to join the radicals and call for violence, that pretty much validates all of our concerns that they are submitting to radical Islam or Islamism.

MT: Are you optimistic or pessimistic that we can reverse our slide into submission to Islam?

HR: In the book, I attempt to show what we can do about the Ideological Path to Submission. If I did not believe that we can reverse this slide into submission, therefore, I would not have written the book. I do note the prevalence among French intellectuals to write books admitting defeat and showing the decline of French culture and democracy in the face of Islamist immigration – and accepting that submission is at hand. Of course both France and Sweden have extensive “no-go” zones where Islamist radicals rule, and aside from some concerns about Dearborn Michigan and Minneapolis Minnesota and several other cities, America is not as far along in giving up its sovereignty which is what the no-go zones mean.

My chapter entitled “Evidence of Submission”, I suppose, leaves the reader feeling very pessimistic. But then I turn to several possible avenues for change and optimism. The first is the concept of social resilience, and we note the work of several scholars on how Israel, surrounded by Islamist enemies and subject to continuous terrorist attacks, has managed to achieve a social resilience to ward off submission. Social resilience is the ability to withstand adversity and cope effectively with change. There are certain coping, adaptive and transformative capacities that can be learned. We have little choice: if we react to major terrorist attacks by appeasement, by striving to be nice to all Muslims, or by adopting a cultural Stockholm Syndrome, or a guilt which turns into masochism or depression, this will cause us to lose the war declared against us.

Another area requiring study is how can move away from the cultural relativism and hopelessness of postmodernism to a more values-based optimistic post-postmodernism; we must persuade the women, the blacks, and the leftists who think Trump is the enemy that it is the Islamists who are the enemy. A country with the divisions in its body politic resulting from the 2016 American election will have a hard time resisting the submission that the Islamists want.

A post-postmodern will understand that the worst Islamophobia comes at the hands of other Muslims. How can anyone looking at contemporary Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen, fail to understand that? A post-postmodern will understand that we have every right, and duty, to defeat Islamism not only for our benefit but for the sake of everyday Muslims who would benefit from freedom

We must understand that we are in a War. Either we submit to Islamism or Islamism submits to us. Those within Islam will also have to decide whether submission to Allah means no submission to western liberties. We cannot share our sovereignty with those Muslims who continue to submit to the Islamists.

The sooner we understand the ideologies that I discuss in the book, which lead us from tolerism to submission to the enemy, the sooner we can reverse our losses and start winning this war.

Talking Campus Free Speech on Capitol Hill A House hearing last week may not change the world, but it may be a start. Bruce Bawer

On July 27, two House subcommittees held a joint hearing on “Challenges to Freedom of Speech on College Campuses.” Congressman James Raskin (D-MD) called it “the most fascinating hearing” he’s attended during his his six months in office. It was fascinating, for what it brought out both about the alarming reality of American higher education today and about the determination of some people on the left to deny or obscure that reality.

That determination was on display from the outset. Val Demings (D-FL), a black woman and former police chief of Jacksonville, professed to recognize the problem on U.S. campuses and to be a strong defender of the First Amendment. But she was quick to insist that the real “clear and present danger” on campuses doesn’t involve the shutting down of “high-profile speakers like Ann Coulter” but “the increase in white supremacist hate groups.” She recounted a recent incident at American University in Washington, D.C., where somebody hung bananas on nooses from trees, apparently a racist response to the election of a female black student, Taylor Dumpson, as student-government president. Dumpson, who sat in the audience at the hearing, had also been the target of “cyberbullying” that Demings characterized as “unprotected hate speech.” The real problem on campuses, Deming concluded, is “criminal acts being wrapped in banners of free speech.”

The banana incident would come up again several times during the nearly three-hour-long hearing, even though this isolated event had nothing to do with the actual topic of the hearing.

At one point during the hearing, one of the Democratic members complained that the Republicans had picked four of the five persons giving testimony. This was surprising, because only one of those five, Ben Shapiro, is a self-identified Republican or conservative, and three of the others – Nadine Strossen, a law professor and former head of the ACLU; Michael Zimmerman, former provost at Evergreen State College in Oregon (setting of the current controversy surrounding Professor Bret Weinstein); and Frederick Lawrence, National Commissioner at the Anti-Defamation League – were largely in denial about the extent to which American colleges are dominated by authoritarian leftists. Yes, they all repeatedly, if sometimes vaguely, expressed support for free speech, rejected “safe spaces” and “free-speech zones,” and agreed that even “hate speech” should be permissible as long as it did not shade over into “hate crime.” But they also made troubling assertions.

Strossen, for example, testified that she, the ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are “all on the same page” when it comes to these matters. Well, if she’s on the same page as the ACLU, which condemned the YouTube video mendaciously blamed by Obama and Hillary for the Benghazi killings, and the SPLC, which is a far-left smear machine masquerading as a human-rights organization (and which has named the David Horowitz Freedom Center as a hate group), game over. Asked by Jim Jordan (R-OH) if most efforts to shut down free speech have been aimed at conservatives, Strossen was at first only willing to admit that this was true of “most of the well-publicized” cases. When pressed, she admitted that, well, yes, most people on campuses are on the left, and the majority of victims are, indeed, non-leftists.

The Federal Program Funding Hamas Supporters on College Campuses How you can stop anti-Israel incitement on campus. Daniel Greenfield

When President Trump presented his budget, he defunded Title VI from $72 million to zero. But it’s up to Congress to make it happen.

What’s Title VI?

Title VI of the Higher Education Act set out to fund international studies that would promote our national security. But on many campuses, Title VI centers undermine our national security by supporting Islamic terrorists.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act mandated that Title VI centers reflect a “wide range of views”. Instead when it comes to the Middle East, Title VI centers have only one point of view.

Title VI centers are the organizing points for Islamist and anti-Israel activities on college campuses. The attacks on Jewish speakers and students, the BDS resolutions and terror support begin with Title VI. So do the pro-Hamas speakers who spew hatred on campuses across America.

Instead of a wide range of views, 6 Title VI Middle Eastern studies directors have backed an academic boycott of Israel. Not only do they not promote a range of views, but they suppress pro-Israel views.

Title VI faculty play a crucial role in supporting campus hate groups from SJP to JVP to MSA. And Title VI material then finds its way from colleges into school classrooms.

All of this hatred is funded by taxpayers. But it doesn’t have to be.

Rep. Grothman, joined by Rep. Allen, Rep. Garrett and Rep. Lamborn are trying to defund Title VI and move funding over to the National Security Education Program (NSEP). But they face an uphill battle.

Defunding Title VI would do a great deal to neutralize the ugliness and hatred on campuses.

Take the Center for Near East Studies at UCLA. The Center is busy touting a faculty member’s attack on Trump. The faculty includes Khaled M. Abou El Fadl, a leading authority on Sharia Islamic law, whom Daniel Pipes named a “stealth Islamist.” El Fadl provided an “Affidavit of Support” for top Hamas terrorist Abu Marzook. He donated to and defended the Holy Land Foundation: a Hamas front group.

In more recent articles, Abou El Fadl has defended Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. He distinguished between “countries and movements adhering to ideologies of resistance” including “Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas” in contrast to the “moderate” appeasers of America and Israel.

“Why is Saudi Arabia so hostile to political Islam movements such as Hamas, Hizbullah, or the Muslim Brotherhood?” El Fadl asks. And the answer is that the Saudis have become “westernized and secular”.

El Fadl has been touted as a moderate because he criticizes the Wahhabis. But his criticism is not moderate, but Jihadist. He complains that Wahhabis care more about whether a Muslim woman wears a veil than “about the invasions of Iraq, Gaza, or the fate of Jerusalem.”

Should Title VI be in the business of funding centers that echo Osama bin Laden?

Robert Spencer Defends the West: ‘The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech’ By Andrew G. Bostom

A review of The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), by Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, 2017, 274 pp.


Twenty-four years ago, the late Mervyn Hiskett, renowned British scholar of the history of jihad and Islamization in sub-Saharan Africa, turned his attention to the looming impact of Islam on his own Britain and Western societies more broadly, including the United States. In his 1993 Some to Mecca Turn To Pray, he articulated presciently the Islamic conundrum now enveloping us, which requires an immediate response if we still cherish individual liberty:

As is so often the case when considering Islam, one has to concede the power of certain of its ideas. But when it comes to having these ideas advocated within our own shores, and as alternatives to our own insti­tutions, one must then ask oneself: Which does one prefer? Western secular, pluralist institutions, imperfect as these are? Or the Islamic theo­cratic alternative?

And if one decides in favor of one’s own institutions, warts and all, one then has to ask again: How far may the advocacy of Islamic alternatives go, before this becomes downright subversive? And at that point, what should be done about it? Finally, do liberal, demo­cratic politicians have the political and moral guts to do what is needed, or will they simply give way, bit by bit and point by point, to insistent and sustained pressure from the Muslim “Parliament” and other Muslim special-interest lobbies like it?

Robert Spencer’s concise, lucid analysis, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), validates Hiskett’s gravest concerns about Islamic subversion: the relentless campaign to abrogate our most basic, unique Western liberty — free expression. With characteristic erudition, attention to detail, and wit (see text box on p. 28, “Did Any Of Them Have Eating Disorders? Those Can Make You Crazy,” from this video), Spencer chronicles how free speech in Western societies has been dangerously eroded by what Hiskett aptly termed “the Muslim ‘Parliament’ and other Muslim special interest lobbies,” in full collaboration with statist Left cultural relativists.

The grotesque harmonic convergence between mainstream, totalitarian Islam — epitomized by Sharia “blasphemy” law — and the “democratic” totalitarianism of the Left, derived from Robespierre and the Jacobins through Communist ideologues and leaders Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, is an underlying, recurrent theme of Spencer’s urgent presentation. Indeed the latter, “Dr. Crankley’s Children” (per Whittaker Chambers’ acid 1948 discussion of the Communist legacy on the 100th anniversary of the publication of Marx’s manifesto), and their “softer” statist minions of our era, bear at least as much responsibility for the erosion of Western free speech as institutional Islam and its pious Muslim votaries. Spencer elucidates how, despite superficial appearances of being oddly conjoined:

… endeavoring to weaken and destroy the freedom of speech, leftists in the United States have found ready allies in the Muslim community. Many observers have remarked that the Left and Islamic supremacists make strange bedfellows: the former advocate a moral libertinism; the latter are attempting to impose a repressive moral code. What binds these unlikely allies is a shared taste for authoritarianism. Both parties want to stifle dissent, and in doing so both find themselves fighting the same foes. Why not join forces?

All 13 of Spencer’s carefully arranged, remarkably compendious chapters have germane (even pathognomonic!) titles, including 10 epigrams:

Chapter 1, “Just Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay”

Chapter 2, “Tailored in an Appropriate Way”: Can Free Speech Really Be Restricted in the United States?

Chapter 3, “Now Obviously This is a Country That is Based on Free Speech, but…,”: The U.S. Government vs. Free Speech

Chapter 4, The “Hate Speech” Scam

Chapter 5, “Peer Pressure and Shaming” to Rein in Free Speech

Chapter 6, “Is That Being Racist?”: Americans Learn Self-Censorship

Chapter 7, “Irresponsibly Provocative”: The Erosion of Free Speech From Rushdie to Geller

Chapter 8, “Can’t We Talk about This?”: The Death of Free Speech in Europe

Chapter 9, Catholics Against Free Speech

Chapter 10, “Not Conducive to the Public Good”: Free Speech Dies in Britain and Canada

Chapter 11, The New Brownshirts

Chapter 12, “The University Prides Itself on Diversity”: Administrators vs. Free Speech Chapter 13, “Facing the New Totalitarianism”: Fighting Back for the Freedom of Speech

Spencer traces the living Islamic law imperative to brook no criticism of the Muslim faith, or its prophet founder, to both canonical traditions of Muhammad and the Koran (9:14-15) itself, which exhorts Muslims to wage jihad to punish the “offending” infidels. Muhammad in effect created his own “Dead Poets Society” comprised of victims (men and women, elderly and young) slain at his behest by his most ardent early Muslim followers, for perceived “insults” to Islam’s prophet. Citing the contemporary example of the Islamic State of Pakistan (and the plight of Pakistani Christian, Asia Bibi), Spencer asks: to assure a “future free of offense to Islam,” what exactions will “our leftist politicians, media elites, and much of the Western intelligentsia” be willing to impose upon their own citizens?

Nikki Haley Nails It on the UN and North Korea By Claudia Rosett

Bravo to Nikki Haley, America’s ambassador to the United Nations, who put out a statement on Sunday saying that contrary to some reports, the U.S. will not seek an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in response to North Korea’s second launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

That’s a smart break from the longstanding U.S. pattern. Sidelining the UN Security Council may be small potatoes in the face of the daunting problem of ending the threat of North Korea, but it is at least a move in the right direction.

In the past, these crash meetings of the Security Council have served among other things to paper over the failures of U.S. policies meant to stop North Korea. U.S. officials are seen to be doing something — an emergency meeting of the Security Council! And on paper, they are. Another toothless UN statement is released, or eventually another UN sanctions resolution is approved. But North Korea carries on.

As a rule, American diplomats in response to North Korea’s rogue missile and nuclear tests have cultivated a routine of bluster, posturing and portentous UN huddles, all so ritually hollow and predictable that, as I wrote on PJMedia on Saturday, it quite likely serves by now to reassure Pyongyang that no serious response is in the offing. They’ve heard and seen it all before.

This past Saturday, the day after North Korea’s Friday ICBM launch, it looked as if the diplomatic response from the usual quarters was following the same old script — and on most fronts, it was. The White House condemned North Korea’s ICBM test, the State Department “strongly” condemned it, the UN and European Union condemned and called for North Korea to mind its manners. And, right on cue, CBS News reported that the U.S. was seeking an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.

In my commentary, on Saturday, I linked to that CBS dispatch, which was headlined: “U.S. wants emergency Security Council meeting over second North Korean ICBM test.” I warned that the UN Security Council’s record on North Korea has been one of abject failure, stretching back to 2006 (that’s when the UN Security Council, with Resolution 1718, set up a North Korea sanctions committee, and kicked off an 11-year run of demanding that North Korea abandon its ballistic missile and nuclear programs).

The day after CBS reported that the U.S. was seeking an emergency meeting of the Security Council, Haley released a statement saying:

Following North Korea’s second ICBM launch on Friday, many have asked whether the United States will seek an emergency Security Council session on Monday. Some have even misreported that we are seeking such a session. That is mistaken.

Rarely has it been such a pleasure to learn that I must offer a correction. But I offer it here, along with an apology to Haley, for taking at face value the CBS report, which cited as its source unnamed “U.N. diplomats familiar with ongoing negotiations.”

The rest of Haley’s statement spelled out precisely why the U.S. was not seeking an emergency Security Council meeting on North Korea. It’s worth quoting in full (boldface mine):

There is no point in having an emergency session if it produces nothing of consequence. North Korea is already subject to numerous Security Council resolutions that they violate with impunity and that are not complied with by all UN Member States. An additional Security Council resolution that does not significantly increase the international pressure on North Korea is of no value. In fact, it is worse than nothing, because it sends the message to the North Korean dictator that the international community is unwilling to seriously challenge him. China must decide whether it is finally willing to take this vital step. The time for talk is over. The danger the North Korean regime poses to international peace is now clear to all.

What Haley nails here is the need to send a message to Kim Jong Un that the U.S. is no longer interested in the usual diplomatic kabuki — which in the past helped one U.S. administration after another kick the growing North Korea threat down the road, and left Pyongyang room to continue equipping itself with weapons for mass murder. The usual formula no longer applies, says Haley: “The time for talk is over.”

A Feminist Reviews Dunkirk, and Says Exactly What You’d Expect What good is a beach movie without girls? Marie Claire wants to know. By Kyle Smith

It was sophomore year of college when Absurd Feminist burst into our English-department seminar room with steam puffing out her ears. “Are there any WOMEN in this book?” she demanded, to no one in particular, slamming a paperback on the table. I happened to be nearest to her blast zone of accusation, so I replied: “Not really.” The book in question was Dispatches, Michael Herr’s account of life among infantry grunts in Vietnam. “Then I CAN’T GET INTO IT!” she exclaimed.

In a moment of clarity I understood what the two main imperatives of higher education were to Absurd Feminist and to so many of her peers: First, instead of broadening her horizons and taking her outside herself to discover the world, she demanded the educators filter all knowledge through her own experience to make it relatable to her. Second, all learning was to be valued in proportion to how effectively it could be made into a cudgel in the identity-politics war. Dispatches, with its virtually all-male cast, represented a pernicious advance for the patriarchy, even if it was about the agonies suffered by men.

Fast forward a few years, and another absurd feminist is here to tell us what’s wrong with Dunkirk: It’s about men. Why couldn’t it have been about women? No, really, Marie Claire’s reviewer wants to know:

Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness — which apparently they don’t get to do enough. Fine, great, go forth, but if [director Christopher] Nolan’s entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mold and doing something different — why not make a movie about women in World War II? Or — because I know that will illicit [sic] cries of “ugh, not everything has to be about feminism, ugh!” — how about any other marginalized group? These stories shouldn’t be relegated to indie films and Oscar season. It’s up to giant powerhouse directors like Nolan to tell them, which is why Dunkirk feels so basic.

“Basic,” you may or may not know, is the current term of derision used by young women and gay men to indicate feeble, unimaginative taste. Oh, you’re wearing a Ralph Lauren Polo shirt? You’re so basic.

It seems unlikely that Marie Claire’s reviewer, Mehera Bonner, has before her an exceptionally bright career of writing about film. As for a career of writing about feminism, though, the sky, for Bonner, is the limit. Her essay could plausibly have appeared on any number of bristling feminist sites. What is her reasoning except feminism taken to its logical extreme? Feminists often declare to the world that they stand merely for an entirely reasonable proposition — say, that women’s lives are as important as men’s. Who would dispute that? Yet feminist writing usually continues far past this point into a need to prove women and men have been equally important in every context, even in history. If women turn out to be mostly irrelevant to an incident, then it is the moral duty of socially conscious creative artists to ignore the matter. They should retrain their sights on something that will give absurd feminists something they can relate to, something that will advance the cause of feminism in general.

Feminists have a habit of obsessively dividing the world into teams — us, them. Ideas and even facts get considered in the light of whether they are good for Team Woman or not. Instead of seeing men and women as close collaborators in the human project, feminists often suppose that the sexes are rivals, opponents. This is sheer tribalism. Bonner looks at Dunkirk and is irritated that men like the film. She sees it as a celebration of manly courage and bravado, or at least manly endurance and grit, and this repulses her. Feminism means constant maintenance of an imaginary set of scales, and she fears Dunkirk adds weight to the masculine side, tipping the culture away from women. If Dunkirk — “Christopher Nolan’s new directorial gift to men,” she calls it — shows men at their best, it must therefore be bad for women.

The reason we can’t have a Dunkirk that’s about women and “marginalized” people is because there weren’t a lot of them on the beach in June 1940. The only Dunkirk that would satisfy Bonner would be a Dunkirk that simply didn’t exist. Can’t men just shut up about all the stuff men have done? Their sense of history is so . . . basic.

— Kyle Smith is National Review Online’s critic-at-large.