Time to take a stand against the new Jew hatred Join the March Against Anti-Semitism in London this Sunday. Tom Slater

https://quillette.com/2023/11/23/holocaust-historians-the-genocide-charge-and-gaza/

Following the Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians on October 7th, accusations of genocide can be heard from the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the United States. These accusations, however, are not being made against the massacre’s Palestinian perpetrators. They are intended to indict the prosecution of Israel’s military retaliation in Gaza and the consequent death toll there. From countries like Iran and Iraq, this kind of perversity was predictable. The virulent antisemitic reaction to the October 7th attacks in the West—which began before Israel attacked Hamas targets in Gaza—is more shocking. In the US alone, those who have taken the opportunity to accuse Israel of genocide include congressional staffers, a congressional representative, numerous university students, and a significant number of university professors.

This is not the first time that Israel has faced accusations of genocide. During the 1982 war in Lebanon, Israel acted to neutralize the bases from which Palestinian guerillas were attacking the country’s north. An Israeli-backed Christian militia was ordered to clear the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, from which Israeli soldiers had taken fire during the campaign. In response to the recent assassination of Lebanon’s Christian president Bashir Gemayel, the militiamen killed a number of fighters and a still-unsettled number of Palestinian civilians. To this day, there is no agreement on how many were killed. The Red Cross said 460. Palestinian scholar Maher Sharif insists that the figure might have been as high as 4,500. Such is the politicization of casualty figures.

These events provoked global outrage, but it is important to note that they also provoked outrage within Israel itself. The 1983 report of the Israeli government’s Kahan Commission held the IDF indirectly responsible for the massacre and led to the resignation of defence minister Ariel Sharon. The UN General Assembly, however, went further than this, voting in 1982 to condemn the killing at Sabra and Shatila as an act of genocide, even though the UN had not investigated the crime. As the Soviets put it during the UN debate, Israel’s purpose “is to destroy the Palestinians as a nation.”

But “genocide” isn’t simply a word for reprehensible conduct in war. The term is defined by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention as the demonstrable intent to destroy a national, racial, or religious group in whole or in part. Not only was the UNGA’s claim of genocidal intent and practice inconsistent with Israel’s own self-critical investigation of wrongdoing, but up to 300,000 Palestinian refugees still live in Lebanon today. The accusation of genocide, international-law expert William Schabas later wrote, was simply used by the UNGA “to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision.”

The humiliation of the Dutch establishment The victory of Geert Wilders shows voters are desperate to hit back against the elites. Fraser Myers

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/11/23/the-humiliation-of-the-dutch-establishment/

To say the victory of Geert Wilders in yesterday’s Dutch elections came as a shock might be the understatement of the century. Not even his aides in the PVV (Party for Freedom) were fully prepared for the earthquake to come. The tiny, cramped venue where it held its election party last night was booked just four days ago, after Wilders enjoyed a last-minute surge in the polls.

With almost all the votes now counted, Wilders’s PVV has won 37 of the 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, with 24 per cent of the vote, trouncing his nearest rivals, a coalition of the Labour and Green parties. Make no mistake: this is a humiliation for the Dutch establishment and another political earthquake in Europe.

Before yesterday’s elections, European elites would have told you that a ‘sensible’ country like the Netherlands was immune to populism. The 2017 elections were heralded across Europe as the death of Dutch populism, when the PVV lost to long-serving centrist prime minister Mark Rutte. Wilders’s party slumped further in 2021, scoring just 11 per cent of the vote. With the peroxide-haired right-winger seemingly sent packing, moderation and centrism had apparently prevailed. Anti-establishment anger had been quelled. Or so they thought.

Even in recent days, the prospect of a ballot-box rebellion had been written off by European media. On the day the Netherlands went to the polls, a BBC News feature on the elections mentioned Wilders only in passing. Its two tips for the next Dutch PM came in third and fourth place. And just last week the Financial Times declared that these ‘elections are tapping into a mood for dry moderation’. ‘The Dutch don’t do wild political leaps’, it insisted. Such complacency has now been shattered.

These elections are as much a win for Wilders as they are a loss for the centrist establishment. The centre-right VVD, which has held power under premier Mark Rutte for 13 years, was knocked back into third place. Perhaps more significant has been the failure of Frans Timmermans, former vice-president of the European Commision, who led a newly formed Labour-Green alliance to defeat.

The failure of Timmermans is a stinging blow to the EU (Wilders is a staunch Eurosceptic who has promised an in-out ‘Nexit’ referendum). It also shows that opposition to climate policy is now a significant driver of European populism. After all, as Commission vice-president, Timmermans was the face of Brussels’s stringent climate policies, including the so-called European Green Deal.

The Wilders Message From the Netherlands Dutch voters take a turn to the right, and why is anyone surprised?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wilders-message-from-the-netherlands-9224c43d?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

Dutch elections rarely stir much excitement abroad, but the voting in the Netherlands Wednesday marks an exception. The big winner was Geert Wilders, a veteran right-wing campaigner, and the freakout his victory has triggered across Europe is something to behold.

Mr. Wilders’s Freedom Party (PVV) won a plurality of 37 seats in the 150-seat legislature. His next nearest competitor, a Labor-Green coalition led by Frans Timmermans, won 25 seats. Politicians will now negotiate to form a governing coalition, a process that often takes months in the Netherlands’ highly fragmented electoral system, and Mr. Wilders may not emerge as prime minister. But voters have sent a clear message.

To wit: Voters are fed up with a stale consensus on issues such as immigration and climate policy. The PVV’s biggest campaign issue for two decades has been immigration. Some 400,000 immigrants arrived last year in a country with a total population of nearly 18 million. While last year’s number may have been skewed by refugees from Ukraine, immigration has exceeded 200,000 every year since 2016.

This creates a substantial fiscal burden under the generous Dutch welfare state and strains the housing market. It’s also becoming a culture-war issue as voters worry the country isn’t properly assimilating Muslim migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. Mr. Wilders can present himself as a tribune of these fears, having lived under police protection since an Islamist murdered film director Theo van Gogh in 2004.

Centrist politicians heap scorn on Mr. Wilders’s proposed solution, which is to ban the Quran, new mosques and Islamic schools. This is extreme, and Mr. Wilders had to walk back those proposals to achieve the vote totals he did Wednesday. But if any other Dutch politician has better ideas for achieving assimilation, voters would be all ears.

Martha’s Vineyard once again allowed to boot out the illegals that we commoners are not By Olivia Murray

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/11/_marthas_vineyard_once_again_allowed_to_boot_out_the_illegals_that_we_commoners_are_not.html

The snobbery and pseudo-elitism that goes hand-in-hand with the elevated status of a Martha’s Vineyard leftist makes it easy to pity their position instead of envy it, with one exception: their ability to swiftly and decisively eject illegal invaders.

On Monday, agents from Boston’s Enforcement and Removal Office (ERO) apprehended and arrested a Brazilian national living in the elite enclave, because he was a “predator” whose presence was “threaten[ing] to residents.” You don’t say.

From a press release on the matter:

The Brazilian national received multiple criminal convictions for raping a child and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. After his convictions and before sentencing, the Brazilian citizen fled the country.

The undocumented noncitizen unlawfully entered the United States on an unknown date at an unknown location without being inspected or admitted by an immigration official.

Per the same source, ERO acts as the “principal federal law enforcement authority” in charge of rounding up individuals who “undermine the safety” of American communities and the “integrity of U.S. immigration laws.”

A hardened criminal exploiting an open border and the U.S. welfare system? Impossible! Karine Jean-Pierre has repeatedly assured us that the border is totally secure, and any “undocumented” persons who do happen to slip through are not a detriment—any insistence otherwise is xenophobic.

But wait, why does the Martha’s Vineyard aristocracy get zero-tolerance agents who protect their communities? Oh, that’s right, because they’re rich leftists, and they’re allowed to have nice things while we little people buckle under the weight of the illegal invasion they manufactured and invited, all so they could fancy themselves as virtuous and morally-superior progressives.

Rules for thee, but not for me.

Negotiating for Hostages By Eileen F. Toplansky

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/11/negotiating_for_hostages.html

Prisoner exchange is not a new event in Jewish history.  From the 1940s on, Israel exchanged Palestinian prisoners and POWs from Arab armies in exchange for Israeli soldiers and civilians taken captive during the war.

In the ancient world, in Numbers 21:1, Israel did not negotiate with the enemy but went to battle against her respective enemies in order to save prisoners.

A seminal case occurred in the early 13th century. Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg (1215–1293) was taken captive when he was 70 years old by Emperor Rudolf I, who demanded an exorbitant sum for the rabbi’s release.  This act was done in peacetime, and the rabbis and leaders of the Jewish communities in that generation were the rabbi’s students.  They were absolutely prepared to raise the sum necessary to free their teacher, even though it would spell financial disaster for the community.

Notwithstanding,  the renowned rabbi would not permit the ransom to be paid, for he understood that such an act would only encourage the enemies of Israel to imprison other rabbis in the future and demand huge sums for their release.

Fast-forward, and Israel continually faces the intractable issue regarding Israeli hostages.  Since its inception in 1988, Hamas is absolutely clear about its total opposition to Zionism and Israel.  Hamas constantly celebrates the killing of Jews.

According to Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, the “rule is that in times of war one does not submit to any of the enemies’ demands.”  For as soon as one gives in to them, they will gain confidence and increase their efforts to strike again and again. 

In fact, “[a]ny concession is seen as a sign of weakness and merely leads to more attacks and more attempts to take hostages.”

What’s more, as a result of [Israel’s] willingness to free large numbers of prisoners for one or two Israeli hostages, the terrorists … figure that even if they do get caught, they most likely will be freed eventually in a prisoner exchange deal.

It should also be noted that many of the terrorists who have been released by Israel in the past simply returned to their terrorist activities, murdering more Israelis. Therefore, as a result of our receiving one Israeli hostage, scores of other innocent Israelis have been murdered.

Presently, the chair of the Israeli Otzma Yehudit party has “stated that that any such swap ‘will bring us to disaster,’ pointing to the 2011 deal to release more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners — including Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, thought to be the mastermind of the October 7 massacre [emphasis mine] — in exchange for captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.”

The Inside Story of How Palestinians Took Over the World The brilliant plan to capture the pliable minds of American college students. by Gary Wexler

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-inside-story-of-how-palestinians-took-over-the-world/

The brilliant Palestinian plan to capture the pliable minds of American college students was laid out in front of me 25 years ago, during a very sinister business meeting in Israel.

It was around the time of the Oslo Accords. I had been hired by the Ford Foundation to create a marketing institute for their grantees in the country. Ford was funding the operations of both Jewish and Arab organizations within the Israeli green line, in an effort to help build a vibrant liberal civil society.

Ford put me in partnership with a young Israeli woman, Debra London. (Debra, now one of my closest friends, has just been selected to head up fundraising for the rebuilding of Kibbutz Be’eri.) She and I drew up a plan to interview each of the grantees, as well as Israeli ad agencies and media firms. While we wanted to learn about the grantees, we also planned to secure free marketing work and media to be an essential part of the institute.

When we interviewed the Jewish organizations, the atmosphere was almost giddy with hope, possibility and belief in Shimon Peres’s new Middle East. Each organization we interviewed talked excitedly about peace and co-existence, a flourishing economy among both the Jews and the Palestinians, collaborative projects and interchanges.

But when we interviewed the Arab organizations, the word “peace” never passed their lips. They spoke of independence, dignity, self-rule, a state. One person even told me she would never use the word “du-kiyum” (co-existence). “There is no such thing as co-existence,” she stressed. “We are just the tenants living on the property that the Jews now own. That’s not a balanced co-existence.”

I tried to explain to my fellow Jewish liberals that we — the Jews and the Arabs — were having two very separate conversations. We were talking “peace.” They were talking “independence.” But as the weeks of interviews progressed, I found the Arab organizations were talking about a whole lot more.

I asked hard questions of both the Jews and Arabs in the interviewing process. With the Arab organizations, when I brought up any  sensitive, and not-so-sensitive, issues—like terrorism, cooperation and even budget—the interviewee would slam on the brakes.

And then from each organization, the same words were spoken: “When you are in Haifa meeting with Itijaa, you can ask that question to Ameer Makhoul.” Itijaa was an Arab civil rights organization. Ameer Makhoul was its executive director. It became clear to me that Ameer Makhoul had some type of control over all the Arab NGOs I was speaking to.

Finally, Debra and I arrived at the offices of Itijaa. Skinny, bespectacled, young Ameer Makhoul emerged from his office, took a look at me and said, “So this is the Gary Wexler who has been asking all the questions.” And then he ticked off every question I had asked along with the name of each person I had posed the question to.

Wilders Wins Big And the Dutch elites weep. by Bruce Bawer !!!!!*****

https://www.frontpagemag.com/wilders-wins-big/

It’s about time. On November 22, seventeen years after its founding by Geert Wilders, the Party for Freedom (PVV) won a huge victory in the Dutch elections. With 23% of the vote, the PVV went from 17 to 37 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives. The conservative British commentator Paul Joseph Watson called it “the biggest political earthquake in Europe since Brexit.” The lefties who’d shown up to follow the returns at the headquarters of other parties exhibited the same shock and grief that we saw in the faces of Hillary Clinton voters at the Javits Center on Election Night 2016.

Even as the final results were being tabulated, a group of “experts” on the Netherlands met at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Enterprise Institute for a 90-minute discussion of the exit polls. There were five people on stage, but very little range in views. All five were unsettled by Wilders’s success. Erik Voeten, who teaches Geopolitics and Justice in World Affairs at Georgetown University, accused Wilders of “Islamophobia” and “xenophobia” and claimed that he “wants to do things that are contrary to current Dutch law, European law, and international law.” Stan Veuger of AEI called the PVV “extremely radical.”

How radical? Wilders, charged Veuger, “wants to ban the Koran, ban mosques, ban Islamic schools.” Echoing word-for-word Voeten’s observation that such moves would violate “Dutch law, European law, and international law,” Veuger pronounced that the very idea of Wilders as head of government was an “inconceivable option.” He even suggested that the “stringent security measures” that Wilders has to live with 24 hours a day might make it “difficult for him to function as prime minister.” And why exactly does Wilders live with “stringent security measures”? Because Muslims have repeatedly threatened him with assassination. Of course Veuger was far too discreet to mention that delicate detail.

Matthias Mattijs, a Belgian who teaches International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins, maintained that the likes of Wilders could not possibly become prime minister. And Arthur van Benthem, who teaches Business Economics and Public Policy at the Wharton School, worried that the election results would stall important action on “climate change” and “energy transition.” The Dutch government, you see, has set itself the goal of eliminating all non-electric cars by 2030 and of cutting “cattle farming in half” to satisfy EU rules on nitrogen emissions. How, asked van Benthem, could the Netherlands attain these manifestly worthy objectives now that Wilders, that deplorable figure, has pulled such numbers?

Biden’s Appeasement of Iran Continues After Hamas Attack on Israel How much more damage will do in the 424 days left in his first term? By Fred Fleitz

https://amgreatness.com/2023/11/24/bidens-appeasement-of-iran-continues-after-hamas-attack-on-israel/

Incredibly, after the horrific October 7 attack against Israel by Hamas (Iranian terrorist proxy), new aggression against Israel by Yemen’s Houthi rebels (also an Iranian terrorist proxy), and a surge in attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria by Iran-backed militias, the Biden Administration last week approved a $10 billion sanctions waiver for Iran.

Apparently because of how controversial this payment is, the Biden Administration tried to keep it secret. However, it was revealed by Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.), who entered details of the waiver into the congressional record, according to the Wall Street Journal.

This foolish and dangerous decision to give Iran access to $10 billion is an indication that despite Iran’s responsibility for the recent wave of deadly violence in the Middle East, the Biden Administration plans to continue to appease Iran and has not dropped its determination to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with Iran that is even worse than the controversial JCPOA agreement negotiated by the Obama Administration.

According to the Journal, the $10 billion dollar waiver was part of an unwritten agreement with Iran intended to keep the Middle East quiet until after the November 2024 U.S. elections. As I wrote in American Greatness on August 4 and September 8, this is a secret, unwritten deal agreed to last spring that will give Iran $20 billion in sanctions relief and allow it to enrich uranium to a dangerous level just short of weapons-grade.

This agreement reportedly was negotiated by Biden officials as a secret and unwritten “understanding” to evade congressional oversight.

A $6 billion ransom payment agreed to last August to free five innocent Americans imprisoned in Iran was part of the secret deal. American and Qatari officials froze the $6 billion on October 12 in response to pressure from Members of Congress because of reports that Iran was behind the Hamas terrorist attack against Israel.

However, several lawmakers, including Rep. Mike Waltz, have questioned whether the freeze of these funds is permanent and believe they will be turned over to Iran in a few months after international outrage over the Hamas terrorist attack has faded. The new $10 billion sanctions waiver is an indication that Iran will eventually receive the $6 billion, possibly soon.

Can Europe Become Western Again? Victor Davis Hanson

https://victorhanson.com/can-europe-become-western-again/

For the first time in a millennium, Europe no longer plays a critical role in promoting Western civilization nor in world history at large.

Ostensibly it should. Some 750 million people live on the European subcontinent.

Europe still remains the most popular tourist spot on earth. Its hallowed architecture, art, infrastructure, and natural beauty still remind millions of visitors of the world’s once most dynamic and grandiose civilization.

Even now, European nations, in and out of the Europe Union, still produce a combined gross domestic product of $24 trillion, second only to the United States.

Europe’s exports are among the world’s most coveted cars, sophisticated technology, and valued industrial goods.

Yet since World War II, Europe has played an increasingly reduced role in world affairs, despite its membership in the NATO alliance and the growth of the European Union.

Why?

The twentieth-century traumas of World War I and II—in which some 70 million Europeans were killed—saw Europe commit near collective suicide. The ensuing Cold War hinged on protecting a relatively unarmed Europe from an aggressive nuclear Soviet empire on Europe’s borders.

But as World War II and the Cold War faded into memory, Europe did not snap back and assume its centuries-old role as a world leader and beacon of Western Civilization.

Instead, a weary Europe outsourced its security to the United States. It redefined itself as a postmodern, pacifist, socialist utopian project—most recently predicated on redistributionist entitlements, open borders, and radical green policies that have all inevitably ensured European decline.

The infernal choice behind the hostage deal Israel is in this terrible situation principally because of America Melanie Phillips

https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/the-infernal-choice-behind-the-hostage?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t06w&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

As if Israelis weren’t traumatised enough by the depraved Hamas pogrom on October 7, the hostage deal concluded this week cruelly deepened their agony.

On Wednesday morning, the terms of the deal between Israel and Hamas were announced. Of the hostages, 30 children, eight of their mothers and 12 other women were to be released in exchange for a four-day “pause” in Israel’s ground and air military operations, more aid deliveries to Gaza and the release of 150 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. In addition, for every further 10 hostages released by Hamas, Israel would continue the ceasefire for another day.

Late on Wednesday night, Israel’s National Security Council director, Tzachi Hanegbi, announced a delay. The hostages wouldn’t be released until Friday at the earliest.

Late on Thursday, Qatar said the deal would go into effect at 7 a.m. on Friday. Various reports said that, at the last minute, Hamas had imposed further conditions on the handover or ramped up its demands that Israel further curtail its military activities.

Who can be surprised by any of that? For Israel is no longer in control of events. At a stroke, it has yielded control of the war to Gaza’s Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar.

The pressure from the hostages’ families for a deal has been enormous. No-one in Israel can fail to share their anguish.