Israel Has the Right to Win Not a right to defend itself. A right to win. by Daniel Greenfield

https://www.ruthfullyyours.com/wp-admin/post-new.php

“Israel has a right to defend itself,” Kamala told CNN. And then insisted that the “war must end.”

What Kamala was really saying was that Israel has a right to defend itself against an attack, but it doesn’t have a right to win.

Democrats and some Republicans have offered the same formulaic responses since Oct 7.

And long before that.

“Israel has a right to defend itself from rocket attacks,” Obama said in 2014 before calling for a ceasefire. Israel has a right to defend itself, Bush and Clinton used to say before urging a quick end to the fighting in order to make a deal with the terrorists Israel is defending itself against.

Israel has a right to defend itself is the bare minimum allotted to anyone. Everyone has a right to defend themselves when they are attacked. Agreeing to it is not a pro-Israel statement. It is at best a neutral position to which the alternative position is that the Israelis should have allowed themselves to be overrun, destroyed and massacred, men, women and children, on Oct 7.

Anything less than the assertion that Israel has a right to defend itself is a declaration that it deserves to be destroyed. And that is the state of the debate within the Democratic Party.

On one side are the supporters of a two-state solution who want to split Israel between the Jews and the Islamic terrorists. Every time the terrorists invade and kill Jews, the Israeli army would have the right to briefly defend the country before the politicians make a new deal with the terrorists. On the other side are the one-state solution backers who don’t believe Israel has a right to exist and therefore no right to defend itself and support the Islamic terrorists who call themselves ‘Palestinians’ in their quest to destroy it by any means from BDS to genocide.

Harris Hangs On To Overall Lead, But Trump Maintains His Hold On Vital ‘Swing States’: I&I/TIPP Poll Terry Jones

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/09/04/harris-hangs-on-to-overall-lead-but-trump-maintains-his-hold-on-vital-swing-states-ii-tipp-poll/

Presidential candidate Kamala Harris still holds a slight lead over former President Donald Trump, but will it last after last week’s interview with CNN? Harris still enjoyed an edge with prospective voters as Labor Day approached, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll suggests, but it might not be sustainable as Trump consolidates his strength among swing-state voters.

In a head-to-head matchup, Harris holds a 48% to 45% advantage over Trump in the September I&I/TIPP Poll, with 1,386 registered voters answering the survey from Aug. 28-Aug. 30. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.8 percentage points.

Israel: Ceasefire Deal Will Prevent Hostages from Coming Home, Anti-Government Protests Only Embolden Hamas by Bassam Tawil ******

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20917/israel-protests-embolden-hamas

Hamas leaders, who are closely observing the protests, are likely to harden their stance in the hope that the Israeli government will give in to the demonstrators’ demands, including an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. Hamas has the Israeli public pressuring their government to allow Hamas to “live to fight another day”: to rearm, regroup and continue attacking Israelis – as Hamas official Ghazi Hamad vowed.

Hamas leaders are banking on the Biden administration to compel the Israeli government to give in to the terror group’s demands…. It has long been the dream of Hamas and many Palestinians to see the US turn its back on Israel.

Hamas’s primary goal is to remain in power and return to the pre-October 7 era, when it built a large terror infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. Hamas knows it will not be able to accomplish its aims without a full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and an official end of the war.

That is why Hamas is insisting that Israel withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Israel’s presence there obstructs Hamas’s efforts to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip through cross-border tunnels, as it has been doing for the past two decades.

Hamas is reportedly demanding US and international guarantees that Israel will not target the terror group anytime in the future. Until then, Hamas will continue to hold on to many of the hostages as an “insurance policy.”

Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the October 7 atrocities, will not release all the hostages at once. He will continue to physically surround himself with many of them to ensure that Israel does not kill him. Sinwar does not care how many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip perish, as long as he is permitted to stay alive.

Even if Hamas were to initially release 10 or 20 hostages as part of any agreement, who could ensure that the remaining captives would be released? Are we supposed to take Hamas’s word for it? Are we supposed to believe that the Americans, Egyptians and Qataris would be able to force Hamas to comply with the terms of any agreement?

Hamas is only interested in a deal that would keep it in power and make Israel lose the war. Hamas does not feel under pressure, at all, to reach any deal. Why should it? If US President Joe Biden were serious about reaching a deal, all he has to do is phone the leader of Qatar and tell him, as he allegedly told Netanyahu a few weeks ago, to “stop bullshitting me!”

The hostages-ceasefire negotiations have broken down because of insufficient pressure from the Biden administration on Hamas’s patrons in Qatar. The failure of the negotiations should be attributed to Qatar’s lack of action against the Hamas leaders who are living in luxury in Doha. Qatar is not doing anything because it is not under any serious pressure from the Biden administration. Has the Biden administration considered using the threat of withdrawing the US Central Command from Qatar’s Al-Udeid Air Base from to pressure the Gulf state’s rulers into convincing their friends in Hamas to free all the hostages?

Will The Biden-Harris Administration Allow the World’s Leading State Sponsor of Terrorism to Acquire Nuclear Weapons? by Majid Rafizadeh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20909/biden-harris-iran-nuclear-weapons

Iran’s runaway strides in its nuclear program have taken place largely under the watch of the Biden-Harris administration.

Will this administration allow the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to acquire nuclear weapons? It many have been what the Obama administration wished — so long as it was “not on my watch” — but it was a terrible idea then, and it is a worse one now. The prospect of Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arming groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias with nuclear weapons is bad for the world’s health.

Iran’s regime that has also repeatedly vowed to annihilate the State of Israel and the United States— after that, presumably, the oil-rich Gulf states. Iran already controls five other countries in the region: Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. There are flashing neon signs that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s dream of “exporting the Revolution” is steadily extending to America’s backyard. Latin American rogue states allied with Iran could potentially be transformed into nuclear-armed threats.

Why the West Must Fight for Its History Frank Furedi

https://quadrant.org.au/features/ideas/why-the-west-must-fight-for-its-history/
Dr Frank Furedi is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent. This was an edited extract from his introduction to his new book, The War Against the Past, to be published by Polity this month.

There was no formal declaration of war. No gunshots rang out. It didn’t even make the local news. But, sure enough, at some point at the turn of the twenty-first century, a war against the past was launched.

Who were the culprits? They are hard to pin down. The partisans supporting the assault on the legacy of European civilisation are not members of a party. They have not issued any war aims and have never formulated an explicit strategic vision. They are also a heterogenous bunch, a coalition of disparate interests and movements.

In an earlier era—the 1990s—when the first wave of mobilisation was taking shape, the English historian J.C.D. Clark warned against representing the promotion of this conflict as the “outcome of a grand conspiracy”. He wrote that it is “the result of a thousand separate, distantly related acts, the promptings of widely absorbed assumptions”. Nevertheless, argued Clark, despite its diverse and uncoordinated prompting, it amounted to a “distinct enterprise of historical disinheritance”.

Hostility towards the past evolved slowly, and then all at once, its intensification occurring haphazardly without any serious long-term thought. The use of the term “war” to account for the systematic pursuit of historical disinheritance is not simply metaphorical. In effect, this war leads to the diminishing of the authority of the past, to the discrediting of its legacy and to the killing of the soul of communities whose way of life remains underpinned by European culture.

This book’s principal argument is that the main driver of the culture war is an undeclared War Against the Past.

At times, supporters of the culture war against Western civilisation behave as if this perilous territory continues to represent a menace to the contemporary world. Their constant targeting of the legacy of the past—its physical symbols, values and achievements—resembles a frenetic moral crusade seeking to make people feel ashamed about their origins and who they are. Culture warriors have, in effect, opened up a second front to gain mastery over how the past is viewed.

The goal of cancelling the legacy of Western civilisation is pursued through reorganising society’s historical memory and disputing and delegitimating its ideals and achievement. They seek to erase the temporal distinction between the present and the past to achieve this objective. There has never been a time in living memory when so much energy has been devoted to readjusting the past and questioning and criticising historical figures and institutions. At times, it seems as if the boundary between the present and the past has disappeared as activists casually cross over it and seek to fix contemporary problems through readjusting the past.

The deaths of these hostages shame the Western conscience It is time to call out Western liberals’ craven silence in the face of Hamas’s fascism. Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/09/01/the-deaths-of-these-hostages-shames-the-western-conscience/

The discovery of the bodies of six Israeli hostages in a tunnel in Rafah confirms what many of us knew about Hamas – that it is a Jew-killing machine that masquerades as a national-liberation movement. That it has no purpose beyond the persecution and slaughter of the Jewish people. That its aim, for all the crowing of its useful idiots in the West about ‘resistance’ and ‘decolonisation’, is nothing more and nothing less than the fascistic terrorising of the inhabitants of the Jewish State. The ‘brutal murder’ of these six people, their only crime their Jewishness, is the bloodiest proof yet that in Hamas Israel faces not only a military foe, but also a virulently racist, existential threat.

But the discovery of the slain Jews shines a harsh light on other people, too. Not just Hamas, but also us, the West, and especially that portion of it that calls itself ‘progressive’. When I saw the photos of the four men and two women killed by their captors in a dank lair in Rafah, I thought to myself: there are people in my community here in the UK who have defaced posters of these people. There are people on my streets who scrawled the word ‘coloniser’ on their faces. There are people in my profession who described the day they were kidnapped as a ‘day of celebration’. There are people in London – and New York, Berlin, Sydney – who expressed solidarity not with these six seized Jews, but with the racists who seized them.

And it made me think: it is not enough today to condemn Hamas. We must also ask how so many in the West came to share in Hamas’s twisted, bigoted hatred for these six human beings. Why so many in the West made excuses for their abduction, vandalised their likenesses and falsely called their persecution ‘resistance’. The barbarism uncovered in Rafah is on Hamas. But the Western conscience is not wholly innocent of this depraved crime.

Let us be clear: the horror in Rafah is what some progressives in the West felt ‘exhilarated’ by, it’s what they ‘celebrated’. This is Hamas, this is its ‘resistance’. All six, according to the IDF, were ‘brutally murdered’ a ‘short time’ before being found. They were: Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 23, an Israeli-American; Alexander Lobanov, a 32-year-old father of two; Carmel Gat, a 40-year-old from Tel Aviv who was visiting her parents in the Be’eri kibbutz on the day of the 7 October pogrom; Almog Sarusi, a 27-year-old who loved ‘travelling around Israel in his white SUV with his guitar’; Eden Yerushalmi, a 24-year-old who was bartending at the Nova music festival; and Ori Danino, 25, who was about to embark on an electrical-engineering course when he was seized.

Is the Western World Still Free? A shift in values has led to a rise in censorship in the West. As these new values gain prominence, the internet’s early, libertarian ethos has mostly faded. By Christopher Roach

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/03/is-the-western-world-still-free/

The recent arrest of Telegram CEO, Pavel Durov, has been in the news. Anti-Russian westerners cheered these events on, even though Durov had fled Russia years ago in order to pursue his techno-libertarian dreams in peace. Adding to the intrigue, the arrest may have included an element of treachery, as some reports say he was invited to visit France by French President Emmanuel Macron, only to be arrested on the tarmac. Mon Dieu!

The ostensible basis for Durov’s arrest is criminal responsibility for various unsavory things that have happened on his Telegram platform. This kind of vicarious liability for hosting websites, particularly those involving user communications and forums, is not entirely new, but it is controversial and always applied very selectively.

No one has rounded up Mark Zuckerberg, even though snuff films, child pornography, and a great many other terrible things have happened on Facebook. On the other hand, after the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting in 2018, there was an outcry against the less regulated Gab website, which is a more freewheeling discussion app similar to Twitter. Similarly, the 8chan message board, on which a mass shooter in El Paso posted a mini-manifesto in 2019, faced hosting and other boycotts from service providers leading to a shutdown shortly after the public outcry.

Whether aimed at individual speakers or entire forums, censorship is on the rise, and it finds its roots in a changing set of values. There is less respect for the principles of free speech, especially among younger people. New principles like the evil of “platforming” bad actors and the importance of psychological “safety” prevail.

As these new values have risen in prominence, the internet’s early, libertarian ethos has mostly gone away.

Deep State Gets More “Bang for the Buck” When Pressuring Monopolies

Can They Really Reinvent Kamala Harris in 70 Days? Harris is not so much a flip-flopper as a padder, who supports anything, without any worry about framing each new position by renouncing her original and opposite one. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/02/can-they-really-reinvent-kamala-harris-in-70-days/

An Opportunistic Mediocrity

In theory, it should be hard for Kamala Harris to win the presidency of the United States.

Under pressure, Harris just completed her first “live interview”—a disastrous performance that was mysteriously taped, edited, and emotionally supported by her co-interviewed running mate. During the interview, she claimed that her values remain the same even though her manifestations of them have admittedly changed. Translated, that means for the next 70 days, she will advocate for popular policies antithetical to her own values, which will inevitably resurface after the election once the current façade fades away.

She is a Berkelyite who, as attorney general of California, had a proud far-left tenure. The lifelong large corpus of Harris’s left-wing enthusiasm and causes are only now being unearthed. But they are singular in that her riffs of embracing wokism, being a radical, erasing ICE, doing away with private health insurance, or being the last person in the room when Joe Biden made his disastrous decisions were all given to sympathetic media or pandered to crowds.

As a result, she often doubled down. Her emphatic statements were intended to stun audiences. Unlike other leftists, she really was a proud woke, radical and wanted everyone else to be one as well—broadcasting her leftism as openly as she is now cloaking it.

In one respected survey, Harris’s voting record was rated as the most left-leaning in the United States Senate. If she voted to the left of the admitted hardcore socialist Bernie Sanders, what exactly does that make her?

Otherwise, Harris was undistinguished, and often overtly so, as she was exposed as inane in Senate hearings. Her envisioned 2019-2020 primary bid proved an utter disaster. When liberal Democrat voters nationwide were first made aware of her radical record, her left-wing agendas, and her weird wash/rinse/spin word-salad chats, they ran.

Harris’s well-funded 2019 campaign quickly blew up early. Indeed, she never entered much less won a single primary–and captured no delegates through voting.

In the frenzy following George Floyd’s death, and the mayhem and nationwide rioting and violence of late spring and summer, panicked 2020 nominee Joe Biden announced in advance he would select a diversity candidate as a running mate. And in no time, and under increasing pressure to trump his braggadocious promise, he boxed himself in by assuring his handlers that his running mate would be preselected as a black woman.

So what really was witheld from CNN’s 41-minute interview with Kamala Harris? By Monica Showalter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/09/so_what_really_was_witheld_from_cnn_s_41_minute_interview_with_kamala_harris.html

Is CNN a news network or a public relations agency?

What else can one conclude but the latter, now that we learn that CNN did a 41-minute interview with Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris, but only released 18 minutes of it to the public, both in its broadcast and in its transcript.

That was its big news scoop, the first major interview of Kamala Harris since Joe Biden was forced to pull out of the race last month.

For a news agency to withold … the news … is strange stuff indeed, given that news is supposed to be what it does, and its bread and butter.

What’s more, experienced journalists, such as Catherine Herridge, have arched their eyebrows over that strange aversion to releasing the news they had actually gathered.
 

Herridge noted that this was what credible news agencies do, they release the full transcripts, even if their final broadcast doesn’t include all the news gathered. The New York Times has called it all the news that’s fit to print. 60 Minutes does an after-hours show for those interested in all the parts of its newsgathering that didn’t make it into their shorter news segments.

Iran’s Gaza War: Unfortunately, A Ceasefire Deal Will Not Bring the Hostages Back by John Richardson

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20916/gaza-ceasefire-hostages

The Biden-Harris administration apparently sees no problem with a Palestinian state being yet another terrorist state, committed to annihilating Israel — as both Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force commander General Esmail Qaani (“Israel is a cancer that must be eliminated”), and senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad have straightforwardly vowed.

A ceasefire might sound as if it is a “good thing” that benefits everyone — understandably if a friend or family member is a hostage. The problem seems to be the Hamas demand that Israel should leave the “Philadelphi corridor” on the border between Gaza and Egypt, so that Hamas, backed by its patrons Qatar and Iran, can resume smuggling weapons and ammunition into Gaza, rearm, rebuild and attack again.

It is probably more convenient, for all those trying to overthrow Netanyahu, to look at him rather than at the real perpetrators: Hamas, Iran and Qatar.

Qatar, “the Trojan Horse in Washington D.C.,” has long been financing Islamic terrorist organizations, as well as bestowing more than $6 billion on US universities to teach American youths whatever Qatar’s leaders decide. Nevertheless, the Biden-Harris administration decided that these qualifications made Qatar perfect to negotiate the Gaza war on America’s behalf, the same way the administration unfathomably decided to have Russia negotiate on America’s behalf with Iran over restarting the nuclear deal.

The Biden-Harris administration seems to want Netanyahu gone to be able to work with “their” prime minister: one who presumably would be delighted not only to have a terrorist Palestinian state on his borders — a state sworn to Israel’s destruction — and who would also be delighted if Iran — also sworn to Israel’s destruction — had nuclear weapons. It is the policy embraced by Obama, so long as Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons “on his watch.” Down the road, however, would be an altogether different story.

What many Israelis seem unwilling or unable to see is, sadly, that even with a ceasefire, the hostages will not be released. Hamas will hold on to as many of them as they can for as long as they can, to keep them in play as a weapon.

With a ceasefire, Israel unfortunately will not get peace and will not get the hostages. The Israelis might see a few hostages at a time dribbled out, the living ones first, they hope, each one exchanged for hundreds, if not more, of convicted Palestinian terrorists released from Israeli prisons, whose first job would be to go right back to terrorizing.

Meanwhile, the negotiations over every hostage would allow plenty of time for Iran and Hamas to bring more weapons in through the unguarded border from Egypt into Gaza, in order to rearm. The current leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, is himself a convicted terrorist who confessed to murdering four people with his own hands. Sinwar was serving four life sentences in an Israeli prison when he was released, among more than 1,000 terrorists, in exchange for one Israeli hostage, Gilad Shalit, in 2011.

There is at least one way to get the hostages back quickly…. “Many Americans believe that they owe Qatar for its hosting of the U.S. CENTCOM base. The truth is precisely the opposite: It is Qatar that owes the U.S., for locating this base there. Without this base’s presence in the country, Qatar would disappear within less than a week – its neighbors would eat it up.” — Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, June 10, 2024.

Instead of saying, as the propagandists no doubt like, “Bring them Home,” meant to sound as if Netanyahu is hiding the hostages under the Knesset, Israelis would be better off saying, “Release the Hostages” — directed at Hamas, Qatar and Iran.

A ceasefire deal unfortunately will not bring back the hostages any time soon. Hamas will drag out each negotiation, continue attacking Israel and try to make Israelis miserable enough to give up the fight, as many seem to be doing even now.

The murder of six more Israeli hostages — Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Carmel Gat, Eden Yerushalmi, Alexander Lobanov, Almog Sarusi and Ori Danino — captured by the terrorist group Hamas appears to be leading many Israelis, along with most of their ever-gullible media (remember the Oslo Accords?) to think that if only their government would agree to a ceasefire, they would get their hostages back. Most people, at least in the West, would desperately like that — not just the American ones — all 120 of them, especially before Hamas finishes murdering them. If the Israelis really want their hostages back, however, they had better think again.