RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-warns-russia-deploying-s-300-in-syria-would-be-major-mistake/?utm_source=Breaking+News&utm_campaign=breaking-news-2018-09-24-1930169&utm_medium=emai

Israeli security cabinet to meet Tuesday over developments

Both Jerusalem and Washington warned Russia on Monday evening against its declared intention to provide the Syrian military with advanced surface-to-air missiles within two weeks, saying the move would further destabilize the region and increase already high tensions.

Israel’s high-level security cabinet was set to meet Tuesday morning to discuss the latest developments.

Russian President Vladimir Putin informed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the decision to provide Syria with the S-300 system in a phone call Sunday.

Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

In response, according to a statement by Netanyahu’s office, “The prime minister said providing advanced weapons systems to irresponsible actors will magnify dangers in the region, and that Israel will continue to defend itself and its interests.”

Concurrently US National Security Adviser John Bolton said Russia’s announcement was a “major mistake” that would cause a “significant escalation” of tensions. He urged Moscow to reconsider.

Channel 10 News quoted a senior American official who noted that the system could endanger US Air Force jets operating against Islamic State in Syria.

“Bringing more anti-aircraft missiles into Syria won’t solve the Syrian army’s unprofessional and indiscriminate firing of missiles and won’t mitigate the danger to aircraft flying in the area,” the unnamed official said.

Russia made the announcement following last week’s downing of a Russian plane by Syria in a friendly fire incident that killed 15 Russia soldiers. The Russian military’s reconnaissance Ilyushin Il-20 was shot down by Syrian missile defense systems responding to an Israeli airstrike.

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/09/women-can-violent-men/

Violence by women against men receives little attention, yet nearly four decades of research reveals they are also targets of physical abuse. Why the silence? Because the activists’ ultimate goal is to tar all men, not just the relatively few perpetrators, as a collective and universally guilty group.

You may have heard of a Perth-based family counsellor who was forced to resign from Relationships Australia WA (RAWA) after posting on his private Facebook page an article social commentator Bettina Arndt wrote a few years ago for the Weekend Australian.[1] The article summarised the latest official statistics and research on domestic violence, providing evidence that most domestic violence is two-way, involving women as well as men.[2] This was regarded as a breach of policy, because, on its own website, RAWA says its domestic violence policy “is historically framed by a feminist analysis of gendered power relations” which, contrary to the international evidence, denies women’s role in domestic violence.[3]

By endorsing a feminist policy that is so morally bankrupt (and punishing a well-respected counsellor for refusing to do so)[4], this government-funded institution displays a disturbing lack of compassion for the wellbeing of all the male victims of domestic violence. RAWA’s policy is based on a discredited approach that perpetuates the false assumption that domestic violence is always perpetrated by men against women. And yet, data keeps mounting which indicate that domestic violence may be perpetrated by both men and women against their partners. A decade ago an official letter by the Harvard Medical School declared that “the problem is often more complicated, and may involve both women and men as perpetrators”. Based on the findings of an analysis of more than 11,000 American men and women aged eighteen to twenty-eight, the letter concluded:

When the violence is one-sided … women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time. Men were more likely to be injured in reciprocally violent relationships (25%) than were women when the violence was one-sided (20%). That means both men and women agreed that men were not more responsible than women for intimate partner violence. The findings cannot be explained by men’s being ashamed to admit hitting women, because women agreed with men on this point.[5]

The Harvard Medical School’s letter was based on a seminal work published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2007. Written by four experts in the field (Daniel J. Whitaker, Tadesses Laileyesus, Monica Swahn and Linda S. Saltman), it seeks to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (that is, two-way) and non-reciprocal domestic violence, and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence and injury.[6] After analysing the data, which contained information about domestic violence reported by 11,370 respondents on 18,761 heterosexual relationships, the following conclusions were reached:

● A woman’s perpetration of domestic violence is the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence;[7]

● Among relationships with non-reciprocal violence, women were reported to be the perpetrator in a majority of cases; [8]

● Women reported greater perpetration of violence than men did (34.8 per cent against 11.4 per cent, respectively).[9]

One explanation for these significant findings is that men are simply less willing than women to report hitting their partner. “This explanation cannot account for the data, however, as both men and women reported a larger proportion on nonreciprocal violence perpetrated by women than by men.”[10] In fact, the authors explain that women’s greater perpetration of violence was reported by both women (female perpetrators = 24.8 per cent, male perpetrators = 19.2 per cent) and by men (female perpetrators = 16.4 per cent, male perpetrators = 11.2 per cent).[11] Based on the information available, the authors concluded:

Our findings that half of relationships with violence could be characterised as reciprocally violent are consistent with prior studies. We are surprised to find, however, that among relationships with nonreciprocal violence, women were the perpetrators in a majority of cases, regardless of participant gender. One possible explanation for this, assuming that men and women are equally likely to initiate physical violence, is that men, who are typically larger and stronger, are less likely to retaliate if struck first by their partner. Thus, some men may be following the norm that “men shouldn’t hit women” when struck first by their partner.[12]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/tory-leadership-candidates-theresa-may-replacement/

A look at the likeliest contenders to replace Prime Minister Theresa May should conservative discontent spark a battle for her job

Speaking at the E.U. summit in Salzburg last week, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, humiliated Prime Minister Theresa May by saying that her Brexit plan “will not work” because it “risks undermining the single market.” To many conservatives, this was further proof of the E.U.’s uncompromising approach to the Brexit negotiations, and of the need for the cleaner break with Europe favored by the Vote Leave campaign.

In other words, the E.U.’s rejection of May’s plan was welcome news to many pro-Brexit Tories. The so-called Chequers deal, which May announced in July, offers a strikingly diluted version of the Brexit the country voted for. When it was unveiled, then-foreign secretary Boris Johnson called it a “turd” and resigned along with some lesser-known ministers.

Nevertheless, Britain must reach a deal with the E.U. by March 29 or else leave without one – and with the clock ticking, even some Brexiteers now favor a more “pragmatic” approach. For instance, Michael Gove, the environment secretary, a self-described “realist” who worked with Johnson on the Vote Leave campaign, has since defended the Chequers deal as “the right one for now,” saying it can be adapted later.

But not everyone within the Conservative party is happy with May’s proposal. In Westminster there are rumors of an imminent leadership challenge. Earlier this month, the London Times revealed that 50 Tory MPs had recently met to discuss getting rid of her. Those party insiders who remain loyal to the prime minister fiercely deny the rumors of an impending no-confidence vote. One told National Review that this story is “categorical bollocks.” Likewise, Brexiteers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg oftentimes deny these claims, reiterating that it is Chequers, and not the Prime Minister, that they wish to “chuck.”

Still, given May’s political struggles and the discontent with Chequers brewing to her right, one wonders how many Tory MPs are quietly hoping to force her out. Referring to a leadership challenge, one Conservative MP told National Review, “If her policy doesn’t change, we’d end up with a very bad deal for Britain. Then the unthinkable [getting rid of her sooner rather than later] might become the essential.”

Whether or not a leadership challenge is upcoming, conservatives will likely not want Theresa May to run in the next election. They need someone who is capable of leading in decisive times, but also someone with enough grassroots appeal to win a general election. Who might this person be? In no particular order, here are some names being floated around the House of Commons.