RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15155/france-inverted-colonization

Soon after, Muslim organizations that had asked for students to have the right to wear the veil in schools also asked for a change in the school curriculum — in history, so that Muslim civilization would be presented in a more “correct” and “positive” way.

“If the way I dress disturbs you, leave my country”. — Signs at a demonstration, October 27, 2019.

“Any criticism of Islam is now blasphemy.” — Ivan Rioufol, columnist, Le Figaro, November 4, 2019.

Details lead one to see that the anti-Christian acts were mostly acts of church vandalism, the anti-Semitic acts were very often violent attacks against Jews or cemetery desecrations, and that the anti-Muslim acts were almost only anti-Muslim graffiti or the laying of slices of bacon the entrance to a mosque or in the mailbox of a Muslim organization. No Muslims were physically attacked.

“We are not in a project of assimilation.” — Yassine Belattar, former advisor to French President Emmanuel Macron, October 27, 2019.

Éric Zemmour has suggested that France is threatened not by a risk of “partition”, but by an inverted “colonization”.

On October 12, 2019, a meeting of the Regional Council of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté was held in Dijon, a quiet town in central France. A woman wearing a long black veil was in the audience, apparently accompanying a group of students. All at once, the head of the National Rally party group at the Regional Council, Julien Odoul, rose and said that the presence of a woman wearing an Islamic headscarf in a public building was incompatible with the values ​​of the French Republic:

“We are in a public building, we are in a democratic enclosure. Madame has all the time to keep her veil at home, in the street, but not here, not today. It’s the Republic, it’s secularism. It’s the law of the Republic, no ostentatious signs.”

He was neither threatening nor violent, yet his words immediately upset others in the room. A boy, apparently the son of the veiled woman, rushed crying into her arms. She then left the room slowly, accompanied by other children.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15159/islamophobia-political-weapon

The objective of using the word “Islamophobia” appears to have been to make Islam untouchable by placing any criticism of it as equivalent to racism or anti-Semitism.

The word “Islamophobia” deliberately intends to transform the critique of a religion — a fundamental right in Western societies — into a crime.

“The term ‘Islamophobia’ serves several functions….Above all, however, the term is intended to silence Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce their religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and dogmatic.” – Pascal Bruckner, in his book, Un racisme ordinaire : Islamophobie et culpabilité, Grasset, 2017 [English version: An Imaginary Racism: Islamophbia and Guilt, Polity 2018]

It is not Muslims people “hate,” any more than they hate Hindus or Buddhists or Shintos. It is the violence and coercion that some adopt — what is known as jihad or holy war — that people reject.

In the attacks at the Bataclan Theater and other sites in 2015, terrorists murdered 131 persons and wounded 413. Is it irrational to remember who was calling those shots?

France is once again profoundly divided over Islam. Last Sunday, November 10, a “March against Islamophobia” was held in Paris in response to an appeal from 50 public figures. In an op-ed in the leftist newspaper Libération, the demonstrators pleaded to “stop Islamophobia and stop the growing stigmatization of Muslims, victims of discrimination and aggression”.

Two recent incidents ignited the public debate and served as a pretext for the march. On October 26, an 84-year-old man shot and injured two men while trying to set fire to the mosque of Bayonne. Earlier in October, in the Regional Assembly of Burgundy, a member of the National Rally party (RN) complained about the presence in the gallery of a woman wearing an Islamic headscarf. The French political class and media condemned both incidents almost unanimously.

Among the signatories of the op-ed are Jean-Luc Mélenchon, president of La France Insoumise (“Unsubmissive France”), the most prominent leftist political party in the French National Assembly; Benoît Hamon, the Socialist Party candidate in the last presidential election; Philippe Martinez, leader of the Communist trade-union General Confederation of Labor (CGT); Yannick Jadot, a prominent Member of European Parliament from the Green party and Edwy Plenel, editor of Mediapart, a successful online media news platform and former editor of the newspaper Le Monde.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15149/europe-iran-nuclear-breakout

Tehran shelters members of the terrorist group Al Qaeda, and it is reportedly continuing to facilitate the group’s operations.

Now imagine if this rogue state obtains nuclear weapons, what kind of destruction could it inflict on the world?

The international community, particularly European nations, must take urgent steps to counter Iran-backed international terrorism and prevent it from becoming a nuclear state.

When the US State Department released its annual Country Reports on Terrorism on November 1, 2019, four countries — North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Tehran’s staunch ally, Syria — were listed as state sponsors of terrorism. The annual report describes the theocratic establishment of Iran as “the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism” in 2018.

How, in 2018, did the Iranian government receive the title “the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism”? The criteria by which it is determined if a country should be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism are based on whether that state has constantly provided support for acts of terrorism.

In the region, Iran has continued to smuggle weapons and provide military, financial, intelligence and advisory assistance to proxies such as the Houthis, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militias, Kata’ib Hizballah, Hamas and other designated Palestinian terrorist groups, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).

Tehran has spent roughly one billion dollars per year to arm and train these militant groups, which serve Iran’s interests. This sum has contributed to a greater capability for Houthi rocket launches at civilian targets in Saudi Arabia, the deployment of thousands of Hezbollah foot-soldiers in Syria, and the regular bombardment of southern Israel with Hamas rockets bankrolled by Iran.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/muslim-brotherhood-subversion-vs-jihadist-rage-raymond-ibrahim/

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

What do Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri—that is, the late leader of ISIS, and the late and current leaders of al-Qaeda—have in common? That they’re among the world’s most notorious Islamic terrorists?  Yes, but there’s something else, something more subtle, that binds them: they all began their careers as members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and most widespread political Islamic organization in the world.

In a 2014 video interview, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi—a spiritual leader of the Brotherhood whose Al Jazeera program on shari‘a is watched by tens of millions of Muslims—asserted that “this youth [al-Baghdadi] was from the start among the top ranks of the Brotherhood, but he was inclined to [positions of] leadership and so forth…  Then, after he spent years in prison [for Brotherhood activities] he came out and joined with them [the nascent Islamic State],” eventually becoming first “caliph.” (I first discussed this Qaradawi video soon after it appeared in 2014; predictably, YouTube has since taken it down, though Arabic websites still have it.)

In response, Egyptian Minister of Religious Endowments (awqaf), Dr. Muhammad Mukhtar Gom‘a had said that “Qaradawi’s confession [concerning al-Baghdadi] confirms that the Brotherhood is the spiritual father to every extremist group.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/iran-winning-or-losing-caroline-glick/

There’s an old Jewish joke where a young man walks up to his grandfather man and asks him how he’s doing.

The grandfather answers, “In a word, good.”

“And in two words?” the grandson presses.

“Not good,” his grandfather replies.

The events of the week call the joke to mind in relation to Iran and its war against Israel and the United States.

Sunday, a crowd of thousands gathered outside the US embassy building in Tehran and chanted, “Death to America, Death to Israel.” The Iranians sounded their customary death chants to mark the 40th anniversary of the seizure of the US embassy and the hostage crisis it precipitated.

Sunday’s demonstration was the opening shot in a week of hostile actions by Iran. On Monday and Tuesday, senior Iranian officials announced they are abandoning key limitations set on their nuclear activities by the nuclear deal they concluded with the Obama administration, the EU, Russia and France in 2015. Monday Iran announced it expanding its uranium enrichment at the Natanz nuclear installation with advanced IR-6 centrifuges, and that it is doubling the number of IR-6 centrifuges presently being used.

Tuesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced that Iran is renewing enrichment activities at its Fordo nuclear installation, built inside of a mountain outside Qom. According to Rouhani, beginning Wednesday Iran would begin enriching uranium at Fordo to five percent by injecting its centrifuges with uranium gas.

Many commentators responded to Iran’s announcements by declaring that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy for scaling back Iranian aggression and thwarting its nuclear program has failed. President Donald Trump’s maximum pressure campaign, which is enthusiastically supported by Israel and the Sunni Arab states is comprised of continuously escalating US economic sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are reinforced by US-supported military operations by US allies – primarily Israel and Saudi Arabia — against Iranian forces and Iranian proxy forces in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-isnt-dead-but-its-ailing-11573516002

NATO is brain-dead. So said French President Emmanuel Macron in an interview published last week.

He’s not wholly wrong. A generation after the collapse of communism, the Western alliance that won the Cold War is adrift and confused. The trans-Atlantic gap is wider than ever, and the fissures between Brexit-minded Britain, Gaullist France and an increasingly powerful Germany seem to deepen and grow from year to year.

Mr. Macron’s description of Europe’s current predicament is brutally frank. With the U.S. losing interest in NATO (a shift Mr. Macron believes predates the Trump administration), Europe can no longer count on American protection as much as it did in the past. Intensifying U.S.-China competition leaves Europe high and dry; neither China nor the U.S. seems particularly interested in what Europe wants or thinks.

In its own neighborhood, Mr. Macron believes Europe is almost helpless before rival powers like Russia and Turkey. Europe’s continuing failure to develop its own Silicon Valley means that the continent risks losing control of its own future. Dependent on American or Chinese tech giants, Europe won’t be able to guarantee the security of its own data or communications. Meanwhile, even as a rigid adherence to outdated ideas about fiscal austerity limits the growth of the eurozone economies, the EU has overstressed the market side of the European project, and paid too little attention to the concept of “community.”