Boycotting Matisyahu is Reasonable, Even if You Don’t Agree with It

Liberal Zionists tolerate uncritical Israel supporters because they are family. But we shouldn’t be surprised when others don’t. To be sure, I doubt this Spanish BDS group would have much sympathy for anybody who didn’t endorse the three goals of the BDS movement. But that is their right. Had Matisyahu, who has made political statements in the past in favor of Israel, endorsed a Palestinian state, or justice for the Palestinians, he would not have been cancelled, even with the protest of the Spanish BDS group. But an artist who has politicized his work should not be surprised if he is called out on it.


The Magnes Zionist: Why Boycotting Matisyahu is Reasonable, Even if You Don’t Agree with It.


I’ve read in many places how antisemitic is Spain. Well…. for being antisemitic, we should have some relevant proportion of Jewish comunities living in Spain, such as, let’s say, Gipsies, Moors or Chinese.

But there aren’t.

And one can’t be racist against some race they don’t even learn to identify.

When we, Spaniards, position ourselves against Zionism, we do the same we did against White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian Supremacists in South Africa during the times of the Apartheid. The same many of us do when we criticise Erdogan and the Turks for the way they treat other minorities, and specially Kurds. The same many of us do when we reject fascists, ultranationalists and supremacists of every kind.

Nothing else.

They call it leftist hypocrisy. I call it cowardice. Plain cowardice.

Satire has been a sanctuary historically monopolized by progressives, originally used as a discreet tool against Western religious fundamentalism. Of course, an authentic Muslim should not dress well, speak lucidly nor drink, of all things, a skinny flat white coffee. The real Muslim is scruffy. A credible Muslim can only be inarticulate, someone who requires an intermediary to ‘explain’ their anger, invariably through the prism of leftist ideological dogma. And if a Muslim does speaks for themselves, they must only do so when full of rage, obviously.

How patronizing.

As another blogger accurately noted in response, the problem begins when journalists and others seek out “community representatives,” or “credible Muslim voices” to fit into convenient boxes. This relies on so many assumptions that it is hard to know where to begin. Not all Muslims wish to express themselves in public through a communal religious identity. Identities are multiple, and some may wish to speak instead just as citizens in their professional capacity, through their political party, or their neighborhood body. Those Muslim who do speak through their communal religious identity are not homogenous. This particularly holds true because majoritarian Islam has no organized clergy, and no pope. The question of religious “representation” becomes particularly difficult to achieve as a result. And in its most extreme sense it is undesirable anyway, leading logically to nothing but ISIS-style bloodshed and theocracy. Muslim “credibility” is just as flimsy an idea to pursue doggedly. In fact, this is nothing but a variant of the African-American “not black enough” theme. Who decides whose “Muslim experience” is real, and whose is not? Is the credible Muslim only he who dresses in Arab robes, eats spicy food and drinks cava? And yet we then worry about profiling?

The great irony is that, unlike many of today’s champagne socialists and shisha-jihadists my entire life has been a prototype of their archetypal aggrieved Muslim. Unlike the Guardian’s private school, Oxbridge-educated journalist David Shariatmadari, I am a state school-educated Muslim and racial minority. I have been stabbed at by neo-Nazis, falsely arrested at gunpoint by Essex police, expelled from college, divorced, estranged from my child, and tortured in Egyptian prison, and mandatorily profiled. I’ve had my DNA forcibly taken at Heathrow Airport under Schedule 7 Laws, which deprive terror suspects of the right to silence at UK ports of entry and exit, among much else. I’ve been blacklisted from other countries. I am every grievance regressive leftists traditionally harp on. Yet their first-world bourgeois brains seem to malfunction because I refuse to spew theocratic hate, or fit their little “angry Muslim” box. Yet they talk to me about privilege, and non-fat lattes?


The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism – The Daily Beast.


European Democracy must protect itself from its own suicidal naivety.

They haven’t understood a thing. The hundreds of thousands of patriots (that is what they call themselves), the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West ―PEGIDA―, haven’t understood a thing.

I mention them because they are the latest fashion in Germany where they have gathered tens of thousands of protestors in just a few months. But we could also be talking about France’s National Front or, simply, of the wave of comments you will find if you peek into any Spanish internet forum where the words ‘immigration’ or ‘Islam’ are mentioned.

Regrettably, those who rush to the street in counter-protests, normally backed (at least in statements) by the governments, demanding the respect, tolerance and acceptance of other cultures, have understood even less.


Respecting the cannibals.


(…) Because for Europeans, all Islam which is not directly assassinating is “moderate”. It can be as violent as it desires: predicate the mandatory veil for women, half-way or complete; say that women and men should not touch each other; that girls should not learn music; that being gay is bad for health; that all literary or humoristic work which questions the ‘sacred’ must be forbidden; that Koran laws are immutable, divine and must be above each country’s legislation…
An Islamic preacher can say all this and more and will be courted by ministers and presidents which will line up to debate with this ‘moderate Islam’ spokesperson. Many of these preachers would have been thrown into jail in Morocco or Syria for their hate-inspiring discourse, but Europe offered them not only asylum but a tribune, a debate, the position of president of the official Muslims council, the title of Honorary Gentleman and the Queens’ Order.

Yes: Europe has promoted, I don’t know if aware of it or blindly, but in an active and continuous way, a criminal way, the most extreme currents of Islam, financed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and their neighbors thanks to the oil tide. From the government elites to the last mayor, the imams, theologians and preachers have been raised to the rank of representatives of the collectives of Maghrebi, Turkish or Pakistani origins. A rank they never had in their countries of origin, a power which they could only acquire thanks to the complicity of European administrations. By a double path: electing them as representatives and by eliminating any alternative ways these collectives may have had for expressing themselves. (…)


Daesh Caliphate: The irresistible attraction to the abyss…

Adèle, the fifteen-year-old daughter of a professional couple in Paris who joins Jabhat al-Nusra after an online conversion by her handler “Brother Mustafa.” In a farewell note to her mother she leaves behind, Adèle writes:

My own darling Mamaman (Mamaman à moi)

…Its because I love you that that I have gone.

When you read these lines I’ll be far away.

I will be in the Promised Land, the Sham, in safe hands.

Because its there that I have to die to go to Paradise.

… I have been chosen and I have been guided.

And I know what you do not know: we’re all going to die,

punished by the wrath of God.

It’s the end of the world, Mamaman.

There is too much misery, too much injustice…

And everyone will end up in hell.

Except for those who have fought with the last Imam in the Sham,

Except for us.

Adèle’s family does not know exactly how she first became drawn to Islam. But as with so many other young recruits from Europe, the Internet seems to have played a crucial part. On Adèle’s computer, they discover pictures of her in a black niqab, as well as a record of her online conversion and rapid indoctrination by Brother Mustapha, in a hidden Facebook account in which she calls herself Oum Hawwa (“Mother of Eve”).

Her conversion appears to have been influenced by the sudden death of Cathy, her much-loved aunt, from an aneurysm at the age of forty. In the Facebook dialogue, Mustapha consoles her about her loss and asks: “Have you reflected on what I explained?”

“Yes, thanks be to God, my spirit is clearer. God called aunt Cathy back to bring me closer to Him. He did this so I would see the Signs that the ignorant don’t hear.”

“This is how He tests us,” says Mustapha. “ Everything is written—there is always an underlying meaning. Allah wanted you to learn. But He must send you a trigger so you can leave the ignorance in which you have been kept up till now. Your reasoning is merely human. Allah reasons as Master of the Universe.…”

As Adèle’s engagement strengthens, Mustapha becomes more strident, moving into grooming mode:

When I tell you to call me you must call me. I want you pious and submissive to Allah and to me. I can’t wait to see your two little eyes beneath the niqab.

The story ends tragically: in Syria, the girl is briefly married to Omar, a jihadi chosen by the Emir of her group. Then one day Adèle’s parents receive a text from Adèle’s cellphone: “Oum Hawwa died today. She was not chosen by God. She didn’t die a martyr: just a stray bullet. May you hope she doesn’t go to hell.”

In the hope of retrieving her daughter, Adèle’s mother, Sophie, receives help from Samy, a practicing French Muslim. He has just come back from Syria after failing to rescue his own fourteen-year-old younger brother, Hocine, who also joined al-Nusra. Samy explains the all-embracing ideology that drives the jihadists. After being kidnapped in Northern Syria, Samy had been brought before a leader of the French division of al-Nusra. “There were young French boys everywhere. An entire town of French recruits,” Samy recalls. He is told that the Syrian jihad and the restoration of the caliphate is a prelude to the final battle at the End of Time. He is warned not to listen to the Salafists (orthodox believers) who claim that waging jihad is subject to certain limitations. “God has chosen us! We have the Truth! You’re either with us or you’re a traitor,” he is told, in a phrase that echoes George W. Bush. “Only those who fight with the Mahdi”—the Muslim messiah, who will restore the caliphate—“will enter paradise.”


Lure of the Caliphate by Malise Ruthven

| NYRblog |

The New York Review of Books.


My Childhood Friend, the ISIS Jihadist: A Modus Operandi repeating all over Europe.

“Am I an unbeliever then?” I ask.

“What do you mean, brother?”

“I am happy to live in Denmark. I don’t think I want to live in the Caliphate.”

“Hopefully, one day you will be led on the right path. Then you’ll see how beautiful an Islamic state is.”

“But what if I don’t want to be led on the right path? What then?”

Amir looks at me questioningly.“What do you mean?” he asks.

“I mean there’s also the possibility that we two are just different and want to live in different ways. That the one does not have to convert the other.”

“Just take it easy, my friend. Inshallah [If God wills], you will be guided onto the right path,” he says.

We walk on for a bit without saying anything.

I think through the paradox that the man I am speaking to on the one hand praises fanatic movements like Islamic State, and on the other seems like a loving and old forgotten friend.

Amir asks me about my family. He says he remembers my fifth birthday, my father’s mustache and that he has seen my articles and wondered how I was doing.

Our walk continues with exchanges of old memories: angry concierges, mythical football stars, dog excrement in the park and the old woman with stubble we both were so afraid of.As we approach our childhood home, the door is open into the yard.

Amir suggests we go in to avoid the noise from the cars on the road. I tell him the story about our game of hide and seek that ended up starting our friendship.

Then Amir says something that surprises me: “You are still my friend. Aren’t I your friend, too?”

“Yes, of course,” I answer, without meaning what I say.

We look at each other and a couple seconds of awkward silence follows.


My Childhood Friend, the ISIS Jihadist.



Even Israelis are starting to get sick… of being part of what they are. And it’s not our usual medicine what they need. Neither do Palestinians.

Did you hear of the Dayton Agreement? That’s the agreement that was imposed upon Yugoslavia by the international community to end the horrendous civil war that was raging there. You know how long the negotiations were? Twenty-one days; I checked. And here, peace negotiations have gone on since I was a high school student. Tell me, are you kidding us?No, really. Do something. Look at what’s going on here. I’m sick of all of your nice statements about ending the “cycle of violence” and all of that, and going back to the negotiation table and all of that. I’ve just had it with you. You come here to meet us, ye knights of civil society. You nod, you encourage, you finance the offices, the salaries, the printing of reports on glossy paper. And I’ve had it. I’ve had it with all of your reports, with dulcet legal English about human rights and international treaty violations with plenty of footnotes. You come, write the report, and go back to your homes. To the Metropolis. To beer and football. Oh, and what football it is!So listen to me for a minute, Mr. Renzi. I know you have nothing but good intentions, really, but I’m a little sick of it. It’s just not helping here. Don’t come. We’ll send you an email with an attachment. We’ll meet at the UN Security Council. No, really, forget about it.


Letter to the EU: Help! Everybody here has lost their minds

+972 Magazine.


I keep asking myself why they love it when they are so blondish and light-eyed… but less and less every time.

“Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”A week earlier, just before 17-year-old Mohammed Abu Khudair was snatched and burned alive, Shaked wrote: “This is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. The reality is that this is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started it.”So even before the boy died horribly she declared him to be the enemy, and afterwards, without any apparent hint of guilt or remorse, she was calling for the deaths of innocent women and their unborn babies.She made me think about my mother’s sister Klara and her three small children who were living in Krakow in 1939 when the Germans invaded. They decided that the Jews – all Jews – were the enemy and had to be eliminated, not least the women and the little snakes they were raising. “Why? Ask them – they started it”, as the Nazis would say if asked.

via Why I’m on the brink of burning my Israeli passport

– Voices –

The Independent.


Why are so many modern British career women converting to Islam?

‘I know women born Muslims who became disillusioned an d rebelled against it. When you dig deeper, it’s not the faith they turned against, but the culture.

‘Rules like marrying within the same sect or caste and education being less important for girls, as they should get married anyway —– where does it say that in the Koran? It doesn’t.

‘Many young Muslims have abandoned the “fire and brimstone” version they were born into have re-discovered a more spiritual and intellectual approach, that’s free from the cultural dogmas of the older generation. That’s how I intend to spend my life, showing the world the beauty of the true Islam.’

While I don’t agree with their sentiments, I admire and respect the women I interviewed for this piece.

They were all bright and educated, and have thought long and hard before choosing to convert to Islam — and now feel passionately about their adopted religion. Good luck to them. And good luck to Lauren Booth. But it’s that word that sums up the difference between their experience and mine — choice.

Perhaps if I’d felt in control rather than controlled, if I’d felt empowered rather than stifled, I would still be practising the religion I was born into, and would not carry the burden of guilt that I do about rejecting my father’s faith

via – magazine


(Not a woman, but… Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) is a proper example of properly converting:  God is the answer. Nothing mostly limited to reject alcohol or social relativism)

…. and that’s how many can feel right now.

Decency, religious and family values, control of physical needs, strict limits on inter-sex contact, etc can already be achieved in our decadent society, you can be vegetarian or abstemious by choice and you can have all that without need of becoming a muslim. It may be a surprise, but…. there’s many people that lives that way. Not needing to be catholic…. nor protestant…. nor even being religious at all. 

If I say this, it’s because any of them (except Lauren Booth, who particularly became a Shia muslim in Iran) expressed any kind of trascendental need, neither said that they turned into Islam because they felt that they were following the right God’s way, or that they want to go to next life through the proper path, or that they are fulfilling Lord’s plan for their life, or that they wanted to dedicate their life to improve the life of others,or gain a full spiritual experience, etc,… 

All they said is that converting to islam fulfilled their needs for letting aside alcohol, wild nightlife and the naivity of a decadent society in search for the fastest satisfaction… and also for having a stable marriage and a family life, being kind and living according to a strong moral code of values, and also for feeling liberated when covering up to protect themselves from men’s sexual looks… 

Dear ladies… I am happy that you found happiness in life.

Really, I do. 

Everyone should congratulate when others reach a nice level of personal completion and stability… but…

Honestly… you did not need to convert to Islam for that. 

You didn’t even need to become religious at all.

Even in the faith you were grown up and abandoned without ever finding a way to live it properly.

There is a difference between having a religion and changing our lifestyle for good.

That difference is God. It’s searching and finding peace in God. Whatever the God we want to believe in.

And that is the key fact that defines living a religion. Whatever the religion. 

So…. after reading about you, my dear ladies… i don’t feel convinced by what you transmitted to me.

Even the hard insistance in covering up, looks to me more as an armor to reinforce your position and resist social judgement than a real improvement in life.

One girl can be decent and discrete, and dressed as a nun, and still there will be a man looking at her disrespectfully. The habit does not make a monk, as we say in Spain. 

So… all together… this is not inspirational at all. And looks more like a radical way to reinforce a personal decission on daily life values than in a true trascendental religious and spiritual liberation. 

And without that, I wouldn’t even ask you to convert to my own belief. 

Catholicism or whatever it could be. 

Good luck you all. 

When realpolitik models tell you that siding with Assad is an option that can eventually happen… you know you should not arm his enemies.

The idea is that, if the moderates are properly armed, they will not only start winning against Assad. They will also be able to edge aside the jihadists. There is also a parallel attempt by Saudi Arabia to channel money from the Gulf to moderates. Although staunchly Sunni, it saw how its original help for al Qaeda in Afghanistan boomeranged into an attempt to foment revolution at home.

Advocates of the pro-moderate policy don’t deny that some of the presumably fairly sophisticated weapons intended for moderates may end up in the hands of jihadists. Nor do they deny that Iran and Russia may react by stepping up their own arms supplies to Assad, with the result that the pace of killing will increase. Their argument, rather, is that conflict will end sooner and that whatever comes after Assad is more likely to be pro-Western.

While that is certainly possible, there are other scenarios. One is that the so-called moderates – who aren’t Western-style liberal democrats to start off with – may become radicalised as the conflict goes on. So a victory for them might not be so good for the West after all.

Another worry is that it may be too late to turn the tide in the moderates’ favour. If so, they may eventually decide to throw their lot in with the jihadists – taking their sophisticated weapons with them. Syria would then turn from a triangular contest into a bilateral one. The West, having unwittingly armed the jihadists, might ultimately conclude it would have been better off with Assad.

Yet another concern is that weaponry intended for Syria won’t stay there. It could be redeployed in other countries, creating yet more carnage – and possibly threatening the West’s interests more directly.

via Arming Syrian rebels fraught with risk

Hugo Dixon (Reuters)



Maybe some of you complain about me just posting extracts and links to news and opinion pages but…. what can you do when your concepts and ideas are exactly those posted in articles like this?…

Also,applying a simplist logic… when you are complaining about people being killed, the last thing you must look for is to bring in more weapons to increase the chances for people to be killed.

And not just in Syria. 

Do French courts show double standards when they have to protect jews instead of someone else?

“Hypocrisy of a myopic social order”

My very well respected Tariq Almaeena expresses his position about a french court that attempts to force Twitter to reveal the names of those who posted anti-semitic tweets.

My position about the issue could be developed in the comments section, but I can resume it in one simple question:

Double standards or different conceptions?