Author: Mick Hartley

dered hostages, have demanded that the prime minister agree to a cease-fire deal to obtain the release of additional hostages, at the cost of conceding one of Hamas’s core demands: an Israeli withdrawal from a strip of land known as the Philadelphi Corridor, which separates Gaza from Egypt. Netanyahu has refused, insisting in a news conference on Monday that Israeli forces will not leave.

Netanyahu is right, and it’s important for his usual critics, including me, to acknowledge it.

He’s right, first because the highest justification for fighting a war, besides survival, is to prevent its repetition. Israel has lost hundreds of soldiers to defeat Hamas. Thousands of innocent Palestinians have died and hundreds of thousands have suffered, because Hamas has held every Gazan hostage to its fanatical aims. Hamas was able to initiate and fight this war only because of a secure line of logistical supply under its border with Egypt.

Israel’s control of the Philadelphi Corridor largely stops this. To relinquish it now, for any reason, forsakes what Israel has been fighting for, consigns Palestinians to further misery under Hamas and all but guarantees that a similar war will eventually be fought again. Why do that? […]

Whatever one thinks of Netanyahu, the weight of outrage should fall not on him but on Hamas. It released a video of a hostage it later murdered — 24-year-old Eden Yerushalmi, telling her family how much she loved them — on Monday, the day after her funeral. It’s another act of cynical, grotesque and unadulterated sadism by the group that pretends to speak in the name of all Palestinians. It does not deserve a cease-fire so that it can regain its strength. It deserves the same ash heap of history on which, in our better moments, we deposited the Nazis, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

There are bright people who say that what Israel ought to do now is cut a deal, recover its hostages, take a breather and start preparing for the next war, probably in Lebanon. Israelis should remember that wars will be worse, and come more often, to those who fail to win them.

Als0 – what agreement can there ever be with Hamas over the hostages? They simply cannot be trusted. When the six hostages were about to be rescued in Rafah, they were brutally and coldly murdered.

One side in this war places a supreme value on saving lives, while the other places none – and views the lives of both Israelis and Gazans as expendable bargaining chips. How do you fight a war against an enemy that not only doesn't care about the number of deaths on its side, but actively welcomes them?

Naturally, in the state we're in, we see thousands and thousands of demonstrators in our cities lauding the killers as freedom fighters, while shouting mindlessly about "genocide" against the Palestinians.

June 17, 1938. Washington, D.C. "No more hot air in Congress. Two million cubic feet of clean, cool air is delivered to members of Congress each minute by a $3,500,000 air conditioning plant, part of which is shown above. The plant supplies the entire Capitol and the Senate and the new and old House Office Buildings."

[Photo: Shorpy/Harris & Ewing]

s was a legal decision. Keir Starmer should not hide behind this fig leaf. It was *very* much a political decision… I know this, because as trade secretary, responsible for arms licences, I saw the legal advice.” 

She accused Labour of being scared of anti-Israel activists and contrasted that approach with her own time in office: “I made a considered decision to maintain all existing licences for arms exports to Israel. Union-backed civil servants threatened to stop work and go on strike. My response was not to make concessions but to make it clear that they were there to deliver the government’s agenda. Not their own.”

Badenoch continued: “The Labour government has once again prioritised the mob over UK interests, making politically charged foreign policy decisions that lack legal reasoning and weaken our position in the global fight against Iran and her terrorist proxies.”

The Tory leadership contender also questioned why the government reached this decision even though advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office stated that "it has not been possible to reach a determinative judgement on allegations regarding Israel’s conduct of hostilities."

“If it hasn't been possible to reach a judgement why are licenses suspended?,” she asked rhetorically before accusing the government of “playing around” with Britain’s defence industry and national security and harming Britain’s relationship with the United States and Israel.

display: inline”>

WATCH: Rescued Israeli hostage Qaid Farhan, speaks about being a Muslim Arab Israeli in Hamas captivity.

Hamas asked him to give them Jews to kill, and he refused.

He chose humanity over his own safety. pic.twitter.com/sx26Kk28np

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) September 4, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

=”font-size: 11pt”>Any adoption of the APPG definition into law, would be untenable and would serve to create religious discrimination, which is likely to be subject to legal challenge in the form of a judicial review. We believe more free speech is the answer, not less. Yes, there are difficult conversations to have about historical truths, or specific aspects of religion, but shutting them down, is not the solution. We believe describing prejudice against Muslims as ‘anti-Muslim’ is much more accurate (and compliant with existing law), as would be the description of prejudice against Sikhs, Hindus and Christians as ‘anti-Sikh’, ‘anti-Hindu’ or ‘anti-Christian’. Our country needs a level playing field for all faiths and none, not preferential treatment for select groups. 

Well said. As has been pointed out often enough, to legislate against "Islamophobia" would be to introduce a blasphemy law by the back door – for just the one religion. It's clear enough why Islamic groups would support such a move, but not at all clear why a supposedly progressive secular organisation like the Labour Party would choose this particular path. 

le=”font-size: 11pt”>“They are needed to handle other women,” said an official from the ministry.

The official said the Taliban has hired women to monitor Instagram pages and report instances where women post pictures with uncovered faces.

“You know how Instagram works … they can hide their pages so no one can see them, but we have women who are our eyes,” said the official, who works at the ministry’s women’s department.

He added that some women are coerced into this role, while others are paid for their work, which also includes accompanying male Taliban members on street patrols.

“Some women were arrested and released only on the condition that they inform the ministry of any illegal activity they observe from the women they follow,” the official said.

Though some women are only too happy to oblige:

One of the women working for the MPVPV is a female informant known as Golnesa. The 36-year-old spends her days monitoring and reporting on her fellow Afghan women – some of the most oppressed in the world.

“It varies from day to day,” she said. “Some days, I patrol the city to look for those who do not adhere to the rules of chastity.

“Other days, I visit different locations to find women who are not following the dress code, I go to busy supermarkets and women’s clothing shops.”

When she spots a woman with an uncovered face or visible ankles or a woman laughing with shopkeepers, she refrains from intervening personally.

“They would say ‘Oh, you are a woman too, why are you doing this?’”

Instead, she contacts male officers who arrive with American rifles slung over their shoulders.

“It’s their job to handle the situation with these women, and many of them are taken to police stations,” she says.

“I don’t support women who protest in the streets and claim to represent all women,” she says. “They don’t represent me or many other Muslim women who are tired of seeing indecency.

“Supporting the infidels isn’t freedom,” she added. “True freedom means women should stay at home, raise their children, serve their husbands and not worry about anything else.

“This is an Islamic country, our brothers fought so hard to kick the infidels out, we cannot just let a few women endanger the religion.

“I am proud to be helping the brothers implement the new rules, women initially thought our brothers were joking, but now everything is law and passed by Amir al-Mu’minin,” she says, referring to the Taliban’s supreme leader. “I have a holy duty.”

Here's her freedom. The Taliban, in one image:

[Image: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP]

aims and means. Just like Black Lives Matter—and who would ever argue that they don’t?—the Bring Them Home movement in Israel is now an amalgam of anti-Bibi activists who’ve been marching for years under a host of different banners, bolstered by sheer emotionalism that argues for a deal at any cost, even if it means leaving Hamas victorious.

Thankfully, not all Israelis agree with this defeatist madness. In recent days, a post from an unnamed reservist in Gaza has been going viral in Israel for making a very different argument than the one you hear parroted by self-appointed experts on TV or hear shouted in the streets of Tel Aviv. “The Philadelphi Corridor is more important than hostages,” wrote the reservist. “It’s more important than me and my entire battalion, which has been fighting in Gaza since the beginning of the war.” Approximately every 100 meters, he explained, a tunnel passes through the fence, openings used for smuggling massive amounts of contraband. Therefore, the reservist continued, “leaving Philadelphi for one day means a death sentence for thousands more Israelis … Our blood is no less red than the blood of the hostages, although we are ready to sacrifice our lives for the sake of defeating the enemy.” Take a deep breath, the reservist concludes, “and think again about your rhetoric. Now you are on the side of our worst enemy.”

For the other side of the argument – and to appreciate how polarised the ongoing debate has become – see David Horovitz's latest editorial in the Times of Israel – Under Netanyahu, Israel is in existential danger:

It is truly unthinkable.

That the prime minister of Israel would manufacture an unwarranted demand, and present it as existential, in order to thwart a potential deal for the release of the hostages held for almost a year by Hamas in Gaza. And to do this because he fears that the extremists with whom he built his government, who are hellbent on plunging Israel into regional war, would otherwise force him from power….

Palestinian Islamic scholar Sheikh Muhammad Qaddura:

Palestine is a bride, her dowry is blood, and we must endure, because we aspire to have an independent country, but the Israeli entity is a transgressing and oppressive entity, and therefore, this entity will be completely eliminated from this geographical area that is Palestine. We say to Khomeini, who raised the slogan 'Israel must be eradicated from existence.' Rest assured, in your Paradise, oh great imam – this slogan will be realized soon Allah willing.

"The difference between us and the Israeli enemy is that while we welcome our martyrs with ululation, exclamations of joy, rallying cried, and roses, they are mentally defeated. This is manifest in their wailing, screaming, disbelief, denial, and other forms of anguish. […]

"In wake of the Al-Aqsa Flood war, the Palestinians no longer pin their hopes on any kind of [negotiations] whatsoever. We do not trust or pin our hopes even on the Arab League or the GCC. We pin our hopes on resistance and confrontation alone. The enticement [of a ceasefire] will never allure those whose goal is martyrdom, victory, or liberation. This would work with those who want this world, but those who want the Hereafter have completely turned their backs on this, because the Palestinians have become more aware, and they understand better that the gun is the only way to liberate Palestine, and that the Israeli enemy must be eliminated from Palestine in its entirety.

"As I said in the past, after Palestine is liberated, we will not accept that even a single grave of a Jew remain in Palestine, so no trace or memory of them remains. Any Hebrew words will be erased, and it will be replaced by Arabic words, and words in the languages of countries that stood with the Palestinians."

Clear enough, I'd say.

e onside. And, as this Times editorial states, it's diplomatically inept.

The decision on Monday to suspend the export of military components destined for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) is an object lesson in how not to conduct diplomacy. Citing fears that the parts in question might be used in IDF operations violating international humanitarian law, David Lammy, the foreign secretary, in effect consigned Israel to the category of rogue state. With decidedly imperfect timing, this insult to a friend was issued just as Israelis digested the execution by Hamas of six hostages seized on October 7.

The announcement of the killings brought Israelis flooding on to the streets in protest at what they regard as the callous and intransigent position of Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, in regard to securing a ceasefire and the release of those held in subterranean captivity. Israelis have a perfect right to demonstrate against their government, a right that differentiates them from Arab neighbours. But Labour’s half-hearted jab at Mr Netanyahu — the UK is a minor supplier of arms parts to Israel and only a tenth are affected by the embargo — was as pointless and offensive as it was diplomatically inept.

This unforced error, which will not help the tormented people of Gaza and appears to have caught the Americans unawares, has served only to dismay moderate Israelis and advocates for Israel in Britain. Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defence minister, spoke of being “deeply disheartened” by the move at a time when his country was engaged on several fronts. At home, Ephraim Mirvis, chief rabbi of the Commonwealth, said the timing beggared belief. Labour Friends of Israel, meanwhile, spoke of Tehran being emboldened by the move.

Mr Lammy, whose judgment has in the past been found wanting (he nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership, was an opponent of the nuclear deterrent and compared Conservative Brexiteer MPs with Nazis) has fallen back on the advice of government lawyers as an excuse. But such advice is routinely overruled in the cause of national policy. Of course, the prime minister must share the blame for this hamfisted attempt to placate the anti-Israel element in his party. For no measurable benefit, the UK has alienated a friend and important intelligence ally. Britain’s disloyalty to Israel at a critical hour will not be forgotten.

If this debacle helps Lammy's speedy departure from high office, so much the better.