Article by Nathan J. Robinson

In 2018, Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was contentious, because he was accused of having sexually abused a woman named Christine Blasey Ford when he was a teenager. Kavanaugh responded angrily to the accusations, and conservatives insisted he was being smeared by Democrats for political reasons. As we showed in this magazine, Kavanaugh’s rebuttal to the charges was full of inconsistencies and outright lies, which Senate Democrats failed to press him on. There was, however, a huge amount of discussion of Blasey Ford’s accusations in the press.

There was less discussion of Kavanaugh’s actual jurisprudence. In fact, some liberal supporters of Kavanaugh insisted that because he was intelligent and studious, he was qualified for the Court, with the only unsettled issue being the accusation by Blasey Ford. It was debated whether Kavanaugh deliberately selected attractive female clerks, or whether he was a supportive mentor to women. Certainly his past behavior toward women was highly relevant, particularly in light of the Blasey Ford allegation. The problem was that, even among Senate Democrats, few seemed interested in Kavanaugh’s horrendous record as a judge, including cases in which he immunized torturers from accountability and undermined labor unions in favor of corporations. (When I wrote that Kavanaugh was clearly lying about basic facts concerning the Blasey Ford accusation, I was invited on NPR. When I wrote a long exposé of his horrific court decisions, hardly anyone read it.) It seemed to me at the time that many liberals saw something they describe as character as more important than ideology, even though ideology can have far more serious implications. As Jay Willis put it in a debunking of the “liberal case” for Kavanaugh, they are part of an elite political world that “prioritize[s] comity and civility over the real-world implications of its work.”

I was reminded of the frustrating, narrow debate over Kavanaugh in the discussions around Pete Hegseth, who has now been sworn in as Trump’s Secretary of Defense. As with Kavanaugh, Hegseth was accused of being abusive to women. (His own mother once called him “an abuser of women,” although she retracted her judgment in a recent interview and says she regretted it soon after making it.) There have been numerous accounts of his poor behavior, from getting dragged out of a strip club in uniform while drunk to squandering the funds of two nonprofits he ran (one pro-war and one pro-privatization of the VA). At one he is alleged to have “treated the organization funds like they were a personal expense account,” and even Republican insiders were concerned about his “frequent public intoxication, poor leadership and the toxic work climate he fostered within the organization.” Hegseth paid a $50,000 settlement to a woman who accused him of rape, and his former sister-in-law says he was so terrifying that his wife had to develop an “escape plan” complete with a codeword in case he got out of hand.

These are very serious accusations, although it’s not clear how the Senate should evaluate accusations that have never been put before a jury. I can see why these lurid and disturbing stories predominated in coverage of Hegseth’s nomination. But let’s be clear: this atrocious behavior is just one reason that Hegseth should not have been made the Secretary of Defense. An even more important reason that he should not be Secretary of Defense is that his political beliefs are likely to contribute to atrocities and aggressive war. A person accused of being an abuser and having alcohol problems who also had “benign” beliefs might not do much damage to the world at large in a government post, although the people around them will certainly be affected. Hegseth, however, holds Nazi-like views on Muslims. He makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Mahatma Gandhi. He should not be anywhere near power, even if every single one of the behavioral allegations against him was proven conclusively false.

First, Pete Hegseth is a rancid bigot whose “clash of civilizations” view of humanity will sanction aggressive warfare against the Muslim world. It is fair to say that if Hegseth said any of the things about Judaism that he says about Islam, it would be transparently obvious that he held neo-Nazi beliefs that could easily justify genocide. But there is a double standard on the treatment of the two religions, so that one can get away with horrific comments about Muslims that would (rightly) be career-ruining if spoken about Jewish people. He specifically says that the very presence of Muslims in a society is harmful:

“Islam itself is not compatible with Western forms of government. [Some] countries want to stay free, so they are fighting like hell to block Islam’s spread. In this age, it’s incredibly difficult to remain clear-eyed about the fact that some ideas for society are better than others. And that is where the real fight lives.”

While he cursorily acknowledges the existence of “moderate” Islam (“When appropriate, I am careful to separate individual moderate Muslims from the radical element”), he says that ordinary, non-jihadist Muslims are essentially misinterpreting their own religion, because “the real heart of Islam is much closer to Islamists than to moderates.” He usually uses the term “Islamism” rather than Islam, but repeatedly makes clear that the distinction is essentially unimportant:

“Esmat is a Muslim, not an Islamist. To him it’s a big difference, but in the larger scheme, the distinction becomes less important.
“ Moderate Muslims are battling not just the Islamists but also the bulk of Islamic theology, history, and traditions… the real heart of Islam is much closer to Islamists than to moderates.”

“Islam—the fastest-growing religion in the world—is almost entirely captured and leveraged by Islamists who believe that their mission is the same as their founder’s. Muhammad led armies, enslaved or killed his opponents, and sought to conquer everyone else. Modern Islamists, of course, have the same goal.”

“Islam and Islamism are two branches of the same theological tree. Islamism is a widespread interpretation of Islam that draws on the text of the Muslims’ holy book, the Quran, which tells the story of a leader who, empowered by his god, spread the Islamic faith by subjugation and the sword. This is a fact, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not.”

“Millions of Muslims have joined modernity and choose to live peacefully; but they do so by disregarding intolerant and violent Qur’anic passages that are no less authoritative today than they were a thousand years ago. Islamists choose to interpret the Quran as it is written, not as modernity tries to edit it.”

So Hegseth is clear: the very presence of Muslims in the United States is a problem, regardless of their interpretation of their faith or their behavior. “The United Kingdom is done for,” he says, citing the fact that many cities now have Muslim mayors. “The British were invaded, and they didn’t even know it.” As “Muslims’ birth rates have grown,” countries that permit Muslim immigration are being destroyed, because they have “import[ed] unskilled, noncontributing Islamist throngs from the Middle East.” The U.S., he says, is next. “Just like the Christian crusaders who pushed back the Muslim hordes in the twelfth century, American Crusaders will need to muster the same courage against Islamists today.” He thinks those who “ “balk at Muslim immigration bans or moratoriums” are deluded: “The ‘Islam = Peace’ narrative is a naive and cowardly worldview, because the alternative is confronting the reality of a threat that’s almost too scary to fathom.” The very fact that the U.S. lets Muslims hold elected office shows we are falling prey to the “cultural invasion”: “In November 2019, twenty-six Muslim candidates won elected office in the United States. Muhammad is now a top ten boys’ name in America—what will it be in 2030?” (Quotations are from his books American Crusade and The War on Warriors.)

Continue reading on:  Current Affairs

Article by Jonathan Cook

There has never been a harder time to do political and media analysis than right now. Each day, the western establishment unmoors itself further from reality. Its priorities are so inverted, so obscene, that the most appropriate response is ridicule.

The latest example was the reaction to violent clashes in Amsterdam before and after a match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and the local team Ajax.

The ridiculous framing from western politicians, assisted by mainstream media outlets, was that the visiting Israelis were “hunted down” in what supposedly amounted to a “pogrom” by Dutch street gangs, comprising mainly youths of Arab and Muslim heritage.

According to this official narrative, the violence on Amsterdam’s streets was further proof of a rising tide of antisemitism sweeping Europe and imported from the Middle East. More, the attacks were presented as having disturbing echoes of Europe’s Nazi past.

Outgoing US President Joe Biden claimed the Israeli fans faced “despicable” attacks that “echo dark moments in history when Jews were persecuted”.

Israel, of course, helpfully stoked this idea by promising “emergency flights” to “rescue” its football fans – seeking to evoke memories of its airlifts in the 1980s of Ethiopian Jews to escape famine and reports of persecution, or possibly of the 1975 airlift of US embassy staff from Saigon.

Islamophobic Bile

The western media’s coverage of these events was as strangely deferential to these genocide-inciting thugs as the Dutch police’s handling of their violence.

Had visiting British fans behaved this way in Amsterdam, the police would have made mass arrests immediately.

Similarly, had British hooligans found themselves on the receiving end of violence in such circumstances, the British media would have shown little sympathy.

The clashes would rightly have been understood as ugly tribalism, a not-unfamiliar sight at football matches.

The difference here was that the clashes unleashed by the Israeli fans’ provocations had a much larger context than simple antipathy between rival teams. It was fueled by tensions surrounding horrifying events taking place on the international stage.

There is nothing shocking or especially sinister about Dutch fans, especially those with Arab or Muslim heritage, responding with their own violence to Israeli youths – some of them presumably fresh from military service in Gaza – trying to export their own genocidal anti-Arab and anti-Muslim incitement to Amsterdam.

All the more so when the Israeli fans were amplifying the bigoted, Islamophobic bile of leading Dutch politicians.

It should have been even less surprising given the wider context: that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were celebrating in someone else’s city the Israeli military’s genocide in Gaza, among Dutch citizens who don’t view Arab life as worthless or Muslims as “human animals”.

Sadly, that is exactly how the western establishment has viewed Palestinians over the past 13 months, as Israel has slaughtered them in the ever-shrinking concentration camp that is Gaza.

Paradoxically, it was left to an Israeli politician, Ofer Cassif, who belongs to the tiny Hadash party, the only joint Jewish-Arab party in the Israeli parliament, to bring some perspective.

He wrote on X: “[Israeli] fans go on a violent rampage, carry out beatings, tear up Palestinian flags in the streets as if they were an occupying force, and shout Nazi slogans in favor of the extermination of a nation [Palestinians], and then whine when the situation degenerates into complete chaos and violence returns to them like a boomerang.”

Continue reading on: The Middle East Eye

Opinion by Zara Mohammed

The reverberations of the Israel-Gaza conflict have been felt acutely by British Muslims in the year since the attacks of 7 October. As I travel across our communities, I’ve witnessed first-hand how the conflict has challenged once again our sense of security and our place within British society.

The human cost is staggering. I’ve spoken with British Palestinians who have lost dozens of family members in Gaza. Parents call me, distraught after their children have been arrested for their pro-Palestinian advocacy. University students fear deportation for criticizing Israel.

The calls for peace and justice for Palestinians echo far beyond the Muslim community. People of all faiths and none have taken to the streets in diverse, impassioned marches. With each passing day, as the civilian death toll in Gaza and beyond mounts, the case against Israel for having committed war crimes grows stronger. This is not a Muslim issue; it’s a human rights issue that concerns us all.

Yet British Muslims find themselves caught up in this, thrown into “culture wars” not of their choosing. While we stand in solidarity with those facing mortal suffering, we are confronted by an alarming surge in Islamophobia. The conflict has been cynically manipulated to stoke hatred against Muslims, orchestrated not only by far-right elements, but also by those who deploy harmful tropes to silence peaceful advocacy for Palestine.

The racist riots we witnessed in England in the summer were, in part, a reflection of this – fueled by false narratives of “two-tier policing”. Just this summer, we saw leading politicians make calls to ban the sacred Muslim affirmation “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) and declare that “Not all cultures are equally valid” when talking of recent immigrants who apparently “hate” Israel. Muslim politicians face accusations of being controlled by Islamists or pursuing “sectarian” agendas.

In workplaces across the country, Muslims struggle to process the horrors they are witnessing while navigating difficult conversations with colleagues. Even longstanding inter-faith relationships have been strained. While many Jewish and Muslim colleagues have reached out to support one another, the polarization has taken its toll. There has been a concerted effort to frame this as a Muslim-Jewish issue, disregarding the millions of others who oppose the violence on humanitarian grounds.

Communities have turned to us for guidance on how to help, how to challenge harmful narratives, and how to maintain hope as the violence continues. Mosques, seeking to provide spiritual solace, have faced vandalism and attacks. Schools grapple with students wearing Palestinian badges, leaving many young people confused and conflicted.

The physical manifestations of hate are impossible to ignore. I myself experienced a hate crime on the London Underground, where someone shouted at me: “You lot are all taking over.”

Yet despite these challenges, there is hope. We can build common bonds that would bypass the urge to “choose sides”, while adhering to our deeply held view that the unfolding genocide in Palestine must stop.

Source: The Guardian

“In many cases, migrants and refugees are seeking to escape situations of violence and grave human rights violations that in some cases may amount to atrocity crimes, by which I mean genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity”, stated Adama Dieng, Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.

The UN along with the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on Religion and Development, the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the International Dialogue Centre (KAICIID) organized the event…

Speakers were unanimous in their call for religious leaders to be included in addressing not only the symptoms, but also the root causes of forced migration and human trafficking, from the point of departure, to assisting with integration into their host countries at the points of destination.

“Religious leaders know their communities. They have access to the people. They are trusted and respected by their communities and are already working to save and improve lives where they are most needed. Through their example and guidance, communities can combat prejudice, support integration and build peace,” said Faisal Bin Muaammar, Secretary General of the International Dialogue Centre. Rudelmar Bueno de Faria, the WCC Representative to the United Nations, stressed that “especially from a faith based perspective, from which human dignity is a key concept and commitment, we are obliged to address the entire experience.”

Source: The World Council of Churches