RUTHFULLY YOURS

Reprinted from Il Foglio.

Of course it is our fault if there is an Islamist who blows himself up in Mosul, a terrorist who kills cartoonists, a fundamentalist who stabs Israelis, a couple of integralists who carry out a massacre in a center for people with disabilities, a man who in the name of ISIS fires thirteen gunshots against a Philadelphia police officer. The responsibility lies always with the West, the scoundrel who, with its language, its words, its wars and its bombs keeps provoking, in every corner of the world, the reaction of Jihadism and Islamist integralism. We are the ones who provoke; of course, it is not them who act. And maybe, who knows, the best way to stop provoking this reaction is to step aside, to hide, and to do all that is possible to prevent a possible counter action. And so it is better not to speak of Islam, say the “mainstream progressives”, better avoid the nonsense, better not to call things by their name. It is better, far better, to take care to cover the roots of evil and violence under a veil of hypocrisy. It is better, far better, to launch heartfelt calls against the rampant global emergency of Islamophobia. Better to refrain from speaking of the real problems, of the connection between the use of violence and the interpretation of Islam. And in the end, it is better to step aside and avoid problems altogether. The West’s cultural retreat is an issue that unfortunately is quite present in news reports around the world. However, when the retreat turns into surrender, it is high time to stop whistling, stop pretending nothing is happening, and start looking at reality with different eyes.

“Christian children are massacred, and everything is done in plain sight. Islamists proclaim on a daily basis that they will not stop until Christianity is wiped off the face of the earth. So are the world Christian bodies denouncing the Islamic forces for the ethnic cleansing, genocide and historic demographic-religious revolution their brethren are suffering? No. Christians these days are busy targeting the Israeli Jews.” — Giulio Meotti, Italian journalist.

The Kairos document seems to be so egregiously discriminatory that in 2010, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) declared it “supersessionist” and “anti-Semitic.”

We must ask why a presentation of the work of Kairos in an Anglican church made no reference whatever to the many associations with extremism and denial of a more rational Christian approach to the problems faced by Palestinian Christians.

Last September, during the World Week for Peace in Palestine Israel — an initiative of the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum (PIEF) of the World Council of Churches, St. Thomas’ Church in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, hosted an event titled “Wall Will Fall”.

For anyone unfamiliar with the history, legal issues, and distortions of the Israeli-Arab and Jewish-Muslim conflicts, the deeply one-sided presentations and literature of the event may seem reasonable in the lack of such a context, and this report will, therefore, attempt to rebalance the narrative.

There are, broadly speaking, two clashing narratives about historical and current events in the region. By presenting only one side of the conflict, Wall Will Fall served only to exacerbate the root cause for the failure of peace negotiations: Palestinian rejection of the two state solution. Although Israel was repeatedly condemned — often very harshly — for its treatment of Palestinians, not once in the presentations or in the literature available were the Arabs ever censured for their series of aggressive wars against Israel, or the Palestinians criticized for their decades of terrorist attacks on Israelis, their preaching of anti-Semitic hatred in school textbooks, mosque sermons, summer camps, government-controlled media, and elsewhere. During the event, guilt was placed on one party only: Israel. As we shall argue, Israel is the least likely candidate for censure at such a high level.

http://jamieglazov.com/2016/01/27/ottawa-hijab-day-the-glazov-gang/

A group called “City for All Women Initiative“ is planning an “Ottawa Hijab Day” on Feb. 25, 2016. The group states that it is aiming for “better awareness”, “greater understanding,” and a “peaceful world.” The Hijab Day will be a day, the group announces, “When non-Muslim women will wear a hijab for all or part of the day to be in solidarity with Muslim women. We walk with our sisters.”

In response to this group’s planned event, we are running Jamie Glazov’s Video: What a Woman in Hijab is Really Saying to You, in which he unveils the terrifying truth about what the hijab really signifies.

Perhaps the organizers of the event will share this video with all of their event’s participants in order to help achieve “better awareness” and “greater understanding”.

Don’t miss this special Jamie Glazov Video:

A criminal indictment was filed against Sedat Ergin, editor-in-chief of the country’s most influential newspaper, Hurriyet. Prosecutors demanded up to five years in prison for Ergin, for allegedly insulting President Erdogan. The indictment claims that Hurriyet insulted the president by paraphrasing what the president had said.

“[T]his is a ‘democracy’ with a growingly diminishing freedom of speech. It is ‘democracy’ where the ‘voice of the nation,’ which practically is the voice of the political majority and its glorified leader, intimidates and silences dissenting voices.” — Mustafa Akyol, columnist, Hurriyet.

According to a report by the Turkish Journalists Association, 500 journalists were fired in Turkey in 2015, while 70 others were subjected to physical violence. Thirty journalists remain in prison, mostly on terrorism charges. Needless to say, the unfortunate journalists invariably are known to be critical of Erdogan.

Europe, cherishing its “transactional” relations with Turkey, prefers to look the other way and whistle. All the EU could say about the prosecution of academics was that it is “extremely worrying.” Brussels cannot see that Turkish affairs passed the threshold of “extremely worrying” a long time ago.

Defending his quest for an executive presidential system Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan cited Hitler’s Germany as an effective form of government. Yes, he said, you can have the presidential system in a unitary state as in Hitler’s Germany. His office later claimed that the president’s “Hitler’s Germany” metaphor had been “distorted” by the media. Erdogan’s words on Hitler’s Germany may or may not have been distorted, but the way he rules Turkey reminds one powerfully of how Hitler ruled the Third Reich.