How Yitzhak Rabin enabled jihadism to be established at Israel's expense

Amnon Lord writes about how the late left-wing Israeli premier Yitzhak Rabin's "legacy" is not one of "peace":

For three decades, memorial ceremonies and community events commemorating Rabin have drawn their meaning largely from the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated Israeli politics since his assassination. Some argue that the unspoken "charge" behind the legal campaign against Netanyahu has always been his supposed moral responsibility for Rabin's death, a kind of modern blood libel that reenergized the Left.

Unlike other countries where leaders have been assassinated, in Israel an entire segment of society was blamed collectively. The tragedy is that Rabin's death enshrined the Oslo Accords as a sacred legacy of the Left, while for the Right they symbolized deception and national endangerment. Rabin himself had long resisted the idea of negotiating with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Only two months before the signing ceremony on the White House lawn did he agree to meet Yasser Arafat and accept the PLO as a partner. Until then, he remained committed to the official Washington talks with the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation he inherited from Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

Many on the Right felt betrayed, that Rabin had concealed his true intentions during the 1992 election campaign. True, he repeatedly ruled out direct talks with the PLO, but he did say publicly that he planned to grant the Palestinians autonomy in the territories within nine months of taking office. That was his policy, not a capitulation to Shimon Peres or Yossi Beilin, except insofar as he later signed that autonomy agreement with Arafat. [...]

But Rabin and his colleagues failed to foresee that the territories handed to the PLO, the Palestinian Authority, would become bases for rocket fire and terrorism. He dismissed warnings from Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon that rockets would one day be launched from Gaza toward Ashkelon. "From Gaza? Impossible," he scoffed.

During that same period, Meretz MK Yossi Sarid declared, "Rabin must be encouraged." And indeed, as Labor shifted leftward, the Israeli Left was already legitimizing contact with Hamas, the terrorist arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. In December 1992, Rabin's government expelled 415 Hamas leaders to southern Lebanon. The move was turned by the Left and by US President Bill Clinton into a propaganda victory for Hamas. Israel was forced to bring the deportees back, and left-wing activists, led by Uri Avnery, protested in solidarity with Hamas in Jerusalem. Avnery later boasted that their campaign had proven that Israel could never again carry out such expulsions.

It's vital to remember that Sharon later turned against his electorate and enabled just what Rabin set out the groundswork for. In contrast to Rabin, Sharon is otherwise not celebrated today, and deservedly so. But this makes clear how Rabin was a bad lot, and he was a disgrace. Some of his actions were also deeply harmful to Americans and Europeans. That he has any kind of a following today is also very sad, as his attack on the Altalena during the 1940s was horrific.

Andrew Cuomo should be blamed if Zohran Mamdani is elected NYC mayor

Phillip Klein makes some valid points why New York's former governor should be blamed if Muslim mayoral candidate Mamdani is elected, and not Curtis Sliwa:

But if Mamdani wins, the blame should rest with Cuomo.

To start, nothing does more to fuel the rise of somebody proposing radical change from the status quo than a sense that the status quo is broken. No doubt, Mamdani benefited greatly from the fact that Mayor Eric Adams was under federal indictment before being pardoned by President Trump, to whom Adams had cozied up. But he benefited doubly from the fact that when the dust settled, his main challenger ended up being Cuomo.

Cuomo was a failed governor. Not only did his disastrous Covid policies contribute to thousands of nursing home deaths, but then his administration tried to cover up the failure by manipulating the data. And he was forced to resign in disgrace over charges of sexual misconduct. It’s hard to imagine a better avatar for Mamdani’s argument that the existing system is corrupt and broken than Cuomo.

I’m generally reluctant to call anybody a “spoiler” given that elections are ultimately about earning votes. If you’re an older Republican voter who has lived in New York long enough, you probably grew up hating Andrew Cuomo’s father, Mario Cuomo (New Yorkers of a certain age will remember the late talk-radio host Bob Grant’s salute to “the sfaccim”). Andrew Cuomo in 2014 said that conservatives had no place in the state.

That Cuomo's running in the first place is surely peculiar, given his shoddy record. Again, chances are he did so in order to make Mamdani look better by comparison. And it's entirely valid to say Cuomo will be responsible if, in the end, Mamdani stands elected as mayor.

Since we're on the subject, it's decidedly crucial to note one of the groups in New York that's backing Mamdani:

Turning to political developments in New York City, Block addressed concerns over the potential election of Mamdani as mayor. "The Jewish community in New York is very diverse. Some support Mamdani, including Satmar communities that are anti-Zionist," he said. "But overall, the community is troubled by having a mayor who doesn't support Israel and has spoken out against it."

It was reported previously that the Satmar clan warmly welcomed Mamdani at a meeting, and no doubt, plenty of Satmar will vote for him. As horrible as that is, it will make clear a clan whose customs are as prudish as theirs sees nothing wrong with sharia, no matter how much worse it is. If Mamdani's elected due to the Jewish vote, the Satmar will decidedly also have to be blamed, though obviously, considering how twisted they are, some will argue it's a moot point. In any event, chances are we'll awaken to a very sad scenario in the coming week.

Hen Mazzig's offensive moral equations

About 2 months ago, the leftist homosexual journalist Hen Mazzig, who already did something bad enough by attacking Abigail Shrier for defending girls, Jewish or otherwise, from LGBT operations similar to the violence Hamas committed on October 7, 2023, wrote apologia for Muslims in Gaza in the Jewish Exponent where he says they shouldn't be "displaced" from the Gaza strip, obscuring that they disqualified themselves of the privilege of remaining:

I grew up on stories of exile. My family was forced out of Iraq and Tunisia for being Jewish — homes stolen, communities erased and history rewritten. To this day, too many people insist it was “voluntary migration,” as if nearly a million Jews in Arab lands simply woke up one morning and decided to leave behind centuries of roots, culture and history.

I’ve spent years pushing back against that erasure, making it clear that my family — and so many others — were forced to leave. And yet, today, I see a disturbing echo of that same denial. The same people who overlooked Mizrahi Jews’ suffering are now casually advocating for the forced displacement of Palestinians as “the only option” to deal with Hamas’ terror.

I get the disgusted feeling he's implying right-wingers "overlooked" eastern Jews' plight? Well that's awfully rich coming from somebody who doesn't seem to have much respect for women. This certainly obscures how the Menachem Begin government did its best to help people of such backgrounds, and suggests Mr. Mazzig's political leanings are impeding his ability to appreciate that. Of course, it's also possible he's implying the left as of now is advocating for moving out what Mazzig blatantly calls "palestianians", and can't stand if anybody on his end of the spectrum is supporting what's best worked on, which is to send away products of Islamic indoctrination who tragically were all on Hamas' side 2 years before, to a distance that would be best remained at.

Reactions to President Donald Trump’s statement last week about removing Palestinians from Gaza ranged from some voices applauding it as a necessary step — one online commentator even told me it was time to “try something new to solve this conflict” — to anti-Israel activists using it as “evidence” of Israeli intentions, to extremists on both sides seizing it to justify their absolutist solutions for this conflict.

I see things differently, because I don’t have to imagine what forced displacement does to a people. I see it in my own family, even 75 years later. My grandmother still speaks of Baghdad — not just as a city, but as her other homeland that was taken from her. The trauma of being uprooted never left her, nor did the deep pain of knowing that an entire world of Jewish life in Iraq was erased in a single generation. Yes, we rebuilt. Yes, Israel gave my family refuge. But what was lost can never be fully regained.

This is what’s missing from the argument that Palestinians would be “better off” leaving Gaza — that they would have safer, more comfortable lives if they were resettled elsewhere. It’s the same logic that was used to justify the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands. And while my family may have found security in Israel, that doesn’t mean the original trauma was justified. Nor does it account for the cultural and communal annihilation that came with it.

This entirely obscures the evils of Islam, which I sadly guess Mr. Mazzig isn't even the slightest bit willing to acknowledge, and even if he studied the Koran's contents, chances are it makes no difference to him. He continues with his shoddy obfuscations:

The destruction of Gaza under Hamas’ rule is undeniable. But forced displacement doesn’t solve that problem — it only ensures that the pain and resentment of this war will last for generations. I am not blind to the fact that anti-Zionists today demand the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel. Not only is that hateful, but it fundamentally denies the Jewish people’s historic connection to the land of Israel. That’s racism. And it’s unacceptable.

Indeed, the loudest voices in the “Free Palestine” movement aren’t calling for a two-state solution. They’re not talking about peace. They want Israel gone. They want Jewish sovereignty erased. They don’t see Oct. 7 as an atrocity — they see it as a model.

But you don’t fight anti-Zionist eliminationism with eliminationist rhetoric of your own. You don’t counter the fantasy of erasing Israel by proposing the same for Gaza.

That’s not strength. That’s surrender — to the idea that this is a zero-sum war where one side must be erased for the other to survive.

And I guess it's weakness to look for the cause of the hatred driving Muslim adherents, right?

I am not talking about efforts — if they exist — to give Gazans who wish to seek refuge elsewhere the ability to do so. That is their right. I am talking about the fantasy that all Palestinians in Gaza will be wiped out or relocated to some as-yet-undetermined place, as if that were a serious solution.

Of course, the plan to displace Gazans that Trump floated, alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, is unlikely to end up getting carried out.

Let’s be honest: Relocating Palestinians from Gaza is never going to happen. No Arab country will get on board. Saudi Arabia rushed to release a statement making it clear they won’t normalize relations with Israel without a Palestinian state. Egypt and Jordan have always said they won’t take in Palestinians from Gaza. No American administration — least of all one that ran on ending wars and tightening borders — will commit troops to enforce it or open the gates to Palestinian refugees.

This is political theater.

And this is defeatism on Mazzig's part. Mainly because the Jordanian king has so far shown the willingness to take in children of families who need medical care, and there are more who'll be relocating to Indonesia. But Mazzig, in all his moral equivalence, won't show any appreciation, will he? And of course, he avoids any reference to the Religion of Peace. He definitely doesn't speak of it negatively. And he doesn't seem particularly interested in making a case for sending a message to Arab countries that they should take in these so-called palestinians, whose very name draws from one given to Israel by the Roman empire, and Mazzig obscures that entirely.

We’ve seen this play before. Netanyahu and Trump previously dangled West Bank annexation only to “concede” it in exchange for the Abraham Accords. Now, Trump is floating this logistical insanity — likely knowing it will never happen — to position himself as the only one who can “negotiate it down.”

But here’s the real danger: While world leaders understand this is just bluster, the people watching — especially online — think it’s real. And that’s a serious threat to us.

Because Mr. Mazzig wants it to be. He's obviously anti-Trump, just like he's anti-Netanyahu. And if he thinks western conservatives are the root cause of all evil, and can't acknowledge even liberals make mistakes, that's just the problem Mazzig has failed to prove he can rise above.

Because when these extreme ideas enter the mainstream, they don’t just fade away. They stick. They fuel conspiracies. They get used to paint all Jews as complicit in a plan that doesn’t even exist. And once again, we become the scapegoat.

Political leaders pushing these ideas aren’t protecting Jews. They’re making us targets. Jews deserve better than to be associated with unrealistic, cruel proposals that will almost certainly never happen but will absolutely be used against us.

And if there’s one thing I know from my family’s history, it’s that displacement only creates new wounds; it does not heal old ones. The Jews who were expelled from Arab lands never found justice, and Palestinians won’t either if they are forcibly removed from Gaza.

Hamas started this war. Hamas is responsible for this war. But the people in Gaza shouldn’t have to pay for a tyranny that rules over them with an iron fist. Many of them, as we’ve seen from footage throughout this war, oppose Hamas and do not want to live under their control.

And we deserve better than to have leftists like Mazzig lecture us with cowardice. This reeks of blood libels anti-Israel propagandists use, to imply that Israel is literally guilty of tyrannizing Gazans entirely without justification. And ignores all the barbaric acts committed in the name of the Religion of Peace, to say nothing of how many Muslims in Gaza were indoctrinated with Hitler's Mein Kamph, translated into Arabic. That Mazzig apparently obscured such horrific discoveries speaks volumes, and the same goes for how he obscures the celebrations the Gazan Muslims had after October 7, 2023. The Islamofascists in Gaza also celebrated September 11, 2001, and Mazzig doesn't dwell on that either. What does that say about what kind of person Mr. Mazzig is?

The more we entertain the idea that one side must be erased for the other to live, the further we get from any future that isn’t defined by endless war.

There are no magic wands here. No shortcuts. And no amount of forced migration — of Jews or Palestinians — will bring the peace we all deserve.

The only way forward is to dismantle Hamas, empower Palestinian leaders who reject extremism and invest in a long-term solution where both peoples can live with security, dignity and self-determination — without adding to the traumas that must be overcome another episode of ethnic cleansing like what my family experienced.

And the more we vehmently refuse to discuss the content of the Koran/Hadith, and vehemently refuse to acknowledge that the modern claim of a "palestinian state" was an anti-Israel fabrication, the less likely we are to solve a terrible problem. Oh, and has Mr. Mazzig ever spoken in defense of black Africans who were victim of Islamofascism in Africa? Or victims of honor murders? He also doesn't seem particularly concerned about Islamic hostility to homosexuality, this despite Mazzig himself being homosexual. He also obscures how Gaza is really Israeli land, and this makes him no better than say, the phony conservative Ed Morrissey.

Mazzig has only proven himself one of the biggest hinderances to Israel, and if he hasn't apologized to the aforementioned Shrier, that's another serious error he's made.

After October 7, some leftists hopefully changed their view of Muslims

In this Wash. Free Beacon article, they interview a leftist "peace activist" who appears to have changed after her experience with the jihadists from Gaza who also invaded her household on October 7:

Irit Lahav, 57, was a peace activist who believed in the decency of the Palestinian people. Then, on Oct. 7, ordinary Gazans joined in a terrorist attack that left more than one in four of her neighbors in Kibbutz Nir Oz dead or abducted.

For many members of Nir Oz and other Israelis, the atrocities of Oct. 7—and particularly the broad participation of the Gazan public in the day—destroyed their faith in coexistence with the Palestinians.

Lahav, a manager at a travel company, long participated in peace demonstrations. In recent years, she volunteered for an Israeli charity called Road to Recovery, driving Palestinian children from the border of the Gaza Strip, less than two miles from her home, to Israeli hospitals for life-saving medical care.

"We thought that Palestinians are good people. All they want is peace and prosperity," Lahav told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview from a hotel in this Red Sea resort city where she and most of her community were temporarily relocated. "It's just that Hamas is forcing them to be in this aggressive situation."

When terrorists first shook the door of her safe room on Oct. 7, Lahav was sure that she and her 22-year-old daughter were about to be killed. But a makeshift lock she had fashioned out of an oar and a vacuum cleaner thwarted three separate break-in attempts. The women lay in the darkened room for about 10 hours listening to sounds of automatic gunfire and grenade explosions. At one point, they heard a group of teenagers robbing their house.

Later, Lahav learned from other Nir Oz survivors that Gazan women and children as young as 10 years old had followed Hamas terrorists into the kibbutz, looting, helping the armed terrorists, and apparently enjoying themselves.

"Basically it was sort of an invasion of a community," Lahav said. "That's why for me, I cannot say this was a Hamas action. No, for me, this was a Palestinian action. A whole community had come to our kibbutz, took our things, stole stuff, killed people, and kidnapped others."

"Am I thinking about myself being foolish until now?" Lahav added. "Maybe. But more is that I'm disappointed in them, that they're so cruel, have no values, really lost their human values."

During Israel's ongoing war to destroy Hamas, 40 of the hostages taken from Nir Oz have been released, while 30 remain in Gaza. Several other hostages have been declared dead in recent weeks, bringing the total number of people killed from Nir Oz to 46.

While it's good to know she's changed her mind about what people like her still call a "palestinian people", it remains to be seen if any of these presumably no-longer-peace-activists recognize that Islam played a very horrific major role in the bloodbath of October 7. And what would Lahav say if "settlers" of background more religious than hers were the victims? Lahav should publicly renounce all associations with anyone who until now supported Islamic savages. And she'd do well to consider how many women in Europe, in example, have fallen victim to Islamofascism as well. Many on the left now owe a serious apology.

Leo Dee undermines cause by saying he's got "no hatred" for terrorists who murdered daughters and wife

The British-Israeli rabbi whose 2 daughters and wife were tragically murdered earlier this month by jihadists around the Jordan Valley has made a very bizarre and undermining statement about the jihadists themselves:

The Israeli-British rabbi whose wife and two daughters were killed this month in a terror shooting on a West Bank road said he has “no hatred” for the people who gunned down his family, in comments aired on Sunday.

Lucy Dee, 48, and her daughters Maia Dee, 20, and Rina Dee, 15, were killed after Palestinian terrorists opened fire at the car they were in as they drove through the northern Jordan Valley on April 7. The daughters were declared dead at the scene, while Lucy was rushed to a hospital in critical condition but died three days later.

The suspects remain on the loose despite promises from officials that they will be found and brought to justice.

“I have no hatred towards the… terrorists,” Leo Dee told Channel 12. “I obviously would like them to be captured and to be treated with full justice that they deserve, but mostly to stop them from doing anything like this ever again.”

“I’ve had some Palestinian friends of mine from neighboring villages who have left messages in tears, because I’ve known them for many years, they’ve known Lucy, they’ve known the girls,” Leo said, explaining how he developed friendships with builders and gardeners whom he employed to work on his home.

“We’ve spent a lot of time together. Because I never got any guards, I don’t have a gun, and I would spend the day working from home while they came, and we would end up chatting, having coffee, talking about their kids, talking about our kids. We trusted them, I trusted them completely with the family. I still do, more so than any other people I know.

“When I spoke to one of my friends recently, he said ‘Look, we love you,'” Dee said, adding that he believed a majority of Palestinians were “decent people.”

Yikes...and I thought it was bad enough when Linor Abargil said she didn't think rapists were evil people. This is a very defeatist thing to say, and notice how Dee's one of a considerable number of people even here in Israel who doesn't seem to have the guts to clearly denounce Islam, if all's been told and indeed he hasn't? This is very sad. Whatever one may think of "palestinians", what does Dee and others like him think of adherents to the Religion of Peace, along with said ideology itself? He's making a terrible mistake, especially after sources like the New York Times downplayed the seriousness of the issue, along with the UK government themselves. The naive approach he's taking, which likely buys into the Islamic concept of taqqiya (deception), makes it difficult to solve these issues.

What Dee should really be doing is condemning any and all dhimmis who minimize the murder of his family, including those who substitute the word "murder" with "killed". That kind of disturbing mentality and MSM mandates are exactly what enable these tragedies to occur. It's absolutely awful these murders occur. But it's also awful when relatives of the murdered women take the lenient positions Dee is. That really hurts the battle against Islamofascism.

37th Israeli government, and Netanyahu's 6th term as premier, is sworn in

Israel's 37th government has been sworn in at the Knesset, and this also marks the beginning of Benjamin Netanyahu's 6th term as prime minister:

Israel's 37th Government was sworn in on Thursday, with Benjamin Netanyahu beginning his sixth term as prime minister.

The swearing-in ceremony began at 11:00 a.m., during which Netanyahu presented his agenda to the Knesset plenum. These include stopping the Iran nuclear program, developing state infrastructure and restoring internal security and governance.

During his address, which was interrupted by members of the opposition, Netanyahu said "Losing elections isn't the end of democracy – it's the essence of democracy. In a democracy, we don't climb the fences of the Capitol, and we don't climb the fences of the Knesset."

Unfortunately, this is something the current leftist opposition in the Knesset no longer seems willing to respect, and likely never did. I guess that's why the sad part is how Yair Lapid, upon leaving office, refused to shake Netanyahu's hand:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the first to take the oath of office. Most of the heads of the opposition parties were present out of respect for the ceremony, but opposition leader Yair Lapid left the plenary hall even before Netanyahu was sworn-in without shaking his hand as is customary.

What really makes this sad is that it hints at where things are headed with the left, which is bad for democratic relations. It could take years to mend the damage Lapid's causing with his ostracizing approach. But, this does demonstrate why it's good he's now out of office. He was causing all the harm he's going to cause, even in the opposition.

So let's hope Netanyahu can handle all the trouble the left's already causing. What if they intent to do everything they can to sabotage his efforts to make peace with Saudi Arabia, for example? Regrettably, that's something they're more than willing to do, if reality says anything about their conduct.

Israel's LGBT activists have no issues with Islam's hostility to their ideology

As explained by Ruthie Blum, following a whole questionable controversy where the left assailed Avi Maoz for wanting to put a stop to LGBT propaganda being pushed in Israeli schools. First, here's what Orit Strook said on Twitter to clarify:

"You can calm down over the much ado about nothing," she tweeted on Sunday. "No one intends to discriminate against LGBT people because of their identity or identification – not in medical care or any other service. LGBTs are human beings who deserve respect and love just like everyone else … It's not at all about the identity of the patient, but about the essence of the treatment."

The idea, she added, is that "a religiously observant doctor will not be forced to provide a medical treatment contrary to halacha [Jewish law], regardless of the identity of the patient. Because in the State of Israel, which was established after 2,000 years of exile, thanks to Jews who gave their lives (who were literally slaughtered, hanged, burned at the stake and tortured to death) for observing the Torah, a believing Jew should not be forced to violate [its laws]."

She went on, "I'm sure a huge majority of the nation agrees with this simple truth and identifies with it, certainly on Hanukkah, the holiday that began with a rebellion against anti-religious coercion."

In conclusion, she suggested wryly that "those who still find it difficult [to accept] do a simple visualization exercise: apply this principle to your [coalition] partners from the Shura Council [the Islamist Ra'am Party]. You'll find that, suddenly, religious and faith principles become somehow easier to swallow."

Her dig at the double standard brings us to the second element of the distortion-hypocrisy couplet that characterizes Lapid's shaky, disparate bloc: the "do as I say, not as I do" practice at which Lahav Hertzanu has demonstrated exemplary skill.

Indeed, the gay parliamentarian denouncing the RZP for "homophobia" is more than tolerant of Ra'am, which labels LGBTQs as "perverts" with an "unnatural lifestyle."

When asked in July 2021 about Ra'am MK Walid Taha's statements to this effect, he replied, "Walid Taha is a member of Knesset who represents a sector. He's legitimate. He's a member of [our] coalition."

Pressed further on Taha's stance, he answered, "I understand it; I can't accept it."

Mere weeks later, he abandoned even that pretense of disapproval. Upon Taha's appointment to the chairmanship of the Knesset Internal Affairs and Environment Committee, the Yesh Atid "progressive" was positively effusive about and toward his Ra'am colleague, lauding him as a "sensitive, caring, committed elected official," and saying, "I'm very happy for your election and very much looking forward to working with you."

A few months after that, Taha attacked Labor MK Ibtisam Marana – also a coalition partner – for her efforts to establish a shelter for Israel's LGBTQ Arab citizens. His method of putting her down was to question whether she was really an Arab, after all.

He proceeded to point out to her that Ra'am follows Islamic law, "which considers same-sex relations to be [among] the most serious crimes in the eyes of Allah, because it is a violation of man's nature and a blatant defiance of Allah himself."

The Koran, he added, "recounts the case of Lot and the heavy punishment that Allah inflicted on the sinners, through their complete destruction with fire and brimstone. [And] the consensus among Muslim scholars [of Sharia] is that the punishment for those who have homosexual relations is execution."

Nary a peep from Lahav Hertzanu, Lapid or the rest of their liberal fellow travelers now carrying on about Strock. If they think that their behavior and bigotry of low expectations do the rainbow flag – or democracy – proud, they've got another thing coming.

So Yesh Atid's openly homosexual MK apparently has no genuine opposition to what Ra'am goes by. Which proves he's only following his lifestyle for the sake of harming the values of a civil society. This should be pointed out repeatedly to all the public who're being constantly told only Maoz and Strook are a problem.

Now, when it comes to healthcare exams, of course LGBT practitioners should be able to see doctors to check if they're suffering from illnesses, and also go to the dentist. But if it's businesses like bakers, they shouldn't be forced to do services for homosexual ideology any more than this Christian baker who was persecuted for years. If LGBT practitioners want services for their ideology, they must prove they can establish their own. If there's one part of being a doctor that religious or otherwise shouldn't have to adhere to, it's the horrific gender reassignment surgeries that're ruining children's lives, along with adults, in the USA and elsewhere now. That's something that should practically be barred from practice, because it risks hurting many people with the awful elements involved. Maybe that's what Strook was referring to? In which case, she'd be making an important case in defense of women and girls. That's something to think about.

New Israeli government formed

At nighttime, Benjamin Netanyahu announced his new coalition to president Isaac Herzog:

Israel has a right-wing government: Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu phoned President Isaac Herzog on Wednesday evening and proclaimed, “I have succeeded in forming a government”.

The phone call took place 18 minutes before the extension granted to Netanyahu from Herzog was set to expire at midnight.

Netanyahu told Herzog, "Dear President, thanks to the enormous public support we received in the last elections, I am informing you that I have been able to establish a government that will act in the interest of all the citizens of Israel."

And since we're on the subject, it was shameful how the New York Times predictably assailed Netanhahu and disrespected the electorate, even if it wasn't shocking. The Jerusalem Post editorial said in response that Israel's democracy is vibrant:

It is now bon ton to forecast the demise of Israel’s democracy.

Everyone is doing it: from august forums such as the New York Times editorial board, to blogs run by North American ex-pats now living in Israel, to Facebook groups set up by disgruntled Israelis encouraging emigration.

For instance, the web headline to a Times editorial on Saturday warning of the dangers of presumptive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government read: “The Ideal of Democracy in a Jewish State Is in Jeopardy.” And the headline adequately reflected the spirit of the editorial.

The editorial said that Netanyahu’s government “is a significant threat to the future of Israel – its direction, its security and even the idea of a Jewish homeland.”

The credibility of the editorial was cast in doubt further down in the piece when the renowned paper inexplicably left out Palestinian terrorism as a reason why “hopes for a Palestinian state have dimmed,” writing instead that the reasons are “the combined pressure of Israeli resistance and Palestinian corruption, ineptitude and internal divisions.”

On this, why doesn't anybody call for a boycott of the NYT, and save a lot of money by not subscribing or buying them? They've been such an insufferable paper for decades on end, and are one of the worst of the USA's most dishonest media sources. What's the use? They insult the Israeli electorate along with the USA public, and it's time to stop buying them in any way.

Not improving matters is that fraud-in-chief Joe Biden's pseudo=administration wants to hold Netanyahu accountable for any directions they oppose:

Netanyahu’s successful welding together of Zionist and orthodox parties into a solid Right-Wing coalition was completed two days after Washington wired a warning, via Politico among other media outlets, that it would hold the Israeli leader personally answerable for any decisions or actions his new government might take that the US doesn’t like.

President Joe Biden and his secretary of state, Anthony Blinken, have not hidden their alarm over the political platforms of the most significant coalition partners – the Jewish Strength Party of Itamar Ben-Gvir, who will come in as Minister of National Security, and the Religious Zionist Party of Bezalel Smotrich, slated to receive ministerial authority over Judea and Samaria.

The two men’s combined goals are to strengthen Israel’s character as the Jewish state by taking steps, among others, to increase security against terrorism, as well as criminal violence, open the Temple Mount to Jewish worship and increase and consolidate the presence of Jewish residents in the towns and cities of Israel’s biblical heartland – Samaria and Judea.

All these aims fly in the face of America’s political intent which, along with that of the rest of the world, is to see the Jews removed from the “West Bank” and the Israel-hating Arab populace enabled to establish in their place a new state called Palestine: the “Two State Solution”.

Not just removed from Judea/Samaria/Gaza, but also from Israel entire. To remove Jews from the main biblical areas is just the beginning of the anti-Israelists' twisted goals. And it's shameful as it's repulsive. This is exactly why the Likud was elected.

Biden against 9-11 victims

Daniel Greenfield reports faux-president Joe Biden's staff are opposing 9-11 victims in court, all for the sake of giving the Taliban money they don't deserve:

White House Democrats have a history of fighting against terror victims suing Islamic terrorists. The Obama administration battled American terror victims suing the PLO. In 2015, after they won a $218 million judgement against the terror group, Blinken, then only a deputy secretary of state, intervened claiming that the lawsuit threatened “several decades of US foreign policy.”

But now Biden is fighting 9/11 victims on behalf of the Taliban. At stake are billions being held by the Afghan central bank fund in the United States.

A decade ago, 9/11 families sued the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Iran. The court found that the Islamic terrorists were responsible and a judgement of $6 billion was handed down.

The verdict was described as "symbolic" at the time. CBS News commented that "it would be near impossible to collect any damages, especially from the Taliban or al Qaeda." But that was before Biden turned over Afghanistan to the Taliban. Since Afghanistan has assets in this country, including $7 billion in bank funds, it’s now entirely possible to collect that money.

Or it would be if the guy who let the Taliban take over wasn’t also in the White House.

Biden officially announced that he was splitting the $7 billion between the families of the victims and a "trust fund" to provide "humanitarian aid" for the people of Afghanistan.

But that was just another one of his many lies and double crosses involving Afghanistan.

The $3.5 billion was placed in a separate trust that would be "separate and distinct" from the around $800 million the Biden administration has already spent on aid to Afghanistan. Officials admitted that the money could actually be used for matters other than "humanitarian aid".

The media headlined it as, "Biden frees frozen Afghan billions for relief, 9/11 victims". But a Biden official admitted that it was done to stop 9/11 families from getting access to the money.

It goes without saying that to undermine victims and relatives of such a barbaric act as the attack on the WTC only compounds the evils of the Democrats. Now, thousands of 9-11 victims have been desecrated as the result of far-left ideologies.

Why far-left reporter Taylor Lorenz needs to be ostracized

Left-wing Wash. Post journalist Taylor Lorenz has quite a history of defaming people on the right she doesn't agree with, which included the daughters of Pamela Geller. Now, the reprehensible Lorenz has gone so far as to doxx another right-winger she despises, based on antisemitic tropes, because this woman was exposing reprehensible leftists on TikTok:

Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz’s hit piece on the popular “Libs of TikTok” Twitter account was not her first foray into doxxing private citizens, but she certainly brought a new twist to the genre when she portrayed the account owner as a “powerful” Orthodox Jew who is “shaping” the media.

[...] Lorenz’s “reporting” is similar to usual corporate media hit pieces on conservatives, with the obvious goal of chilling speech and intimidating anyone who dares to challenge the regime’s narrative, which apparently now includes private citizens. But Lorenz took it a step further by dabbling in the long-held anti-Semitic trope that “Jews control the media.”

The piece is so clearly agenda-driven that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous and appalling. At a time when anti-Semitic attacks in the U.S. are at an all-time high, editors at The Washington Post thought it was a good idea to identify a private citizen as an Orthodox Jew, a detail that is entirely irrelevant to the story, then link to said person’s real estate license, including the person’s name, real estate license number, and physical address. The newspaper only removed the link after public pushback.

More on the topic here. Based on Lorenz's past conduct, this isn't entirely surprising she'd go full-fledged antisemitic, seeing as she's already gone after Geller's family, obviously because Lorenz is against people who object to Islamofascism as well. What Lorenz has done is defamatory and hurtful to people trying to put a stop to evils in the world.

The good news is that Lorenz and the Wash. Post's offensive conduct has actually had the opposite effect of what they wanted, and only helped build up more audience for the Libs of TikTok account:

Because she disagrees with Pamela Gellar’s politics, Lorenz outed Gellar’s daughters, who had developed their own popular, non-political Instagram accounts. She also went after KellyAnne Conway’s daughter. And speaking of Gellar, some people have noted that Lorenz seems to have a real issue with Jews. (LOTT's proprietor is Jewish.)

[...] I sincerely hope that LOTT sues both Lorenz and the WaPo (along with the individual editors involved) and that she gets Nick Sandmann rich off them. Lorenz is a trust fund kid and the WaPo is Jeff Bezo’s private political playground, so there are some mighty deep pockets there. The public should also deride, shame, and shun Lorenz and the WaPo.

But here’s the biggest punishment of all, and it’s a natural consequence of WaPo’s doxing hit piece: Although the purpose was to silence LOTT, it dramatically increased her reach. I don’t know how many followers LOTT had before she was doxed, but I noted about 630,000 on Tuesday morning after the numbers had already begun accruing. As of now 11:45 P.M Eastern Time on Tuesday, the account is at 800,000 followers and it’s increasing, as best as I can tell, by around 2,000 new followers every ten minutes.

This is the Streisand effect on steroids, a term that refers to Barbra Streisand’s attempt to suppress a photo of her Malibu property only to draw massive attention to the photo. With LOTT’s expanded audience, the account had better start going back to its core activity, which was showing to the wider world the bizarre, creepy, even dangerous materials leftists freely promote about themselves.

So now, Lorenz's actions have caught up with her, and she's being noticed for having an antisemitic leaning. If the Wash. Post wants to do a favor, they'll stop employing her, and so will the Daily Beast, where she also worked. People like Lorenz have no place in journalism, which is almost an embarrassing career to be in at this point.

A so-called comics historian sides against Lois Lane's Jewish creators

Tim Hanley is a Canadian comics historian of a most left-wing leaning who's written books about Wonder Woman, Lois Lane, and other such comic women, but apparently out of some kind of male feminist belief system. And guess who's side he chose to take at a time when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's Israeli/Jewish brethren around the world are suffering horror stories at a time when antisemitism arose during the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza, and Islamic riots in cities like Lod? It wasn't Siegel/Shuster's ethnic relatives:

Here's some info on the mission and the charities @books_palestine supports so you can learn more! #BooksForPalestine pic.twitter.com/RpcE0QGVeA

— Tim Hanley (@timhanley01) May 27, 2021

He's dedicating his work on a Betty & Veronica history book to a cause going against any and all of comicdom's Jewish creators? Well...this is certainly telling. Some gratitude he shows there alright, after all the problems comicdom's Jews went through, and tried to address in their time. Now, some charlatan desecrates their memory by taking a position that's hurtful to their Israeli brethren. Even Archie had their share of Jewish contributors decades before, and these repellent promotional posts are a slap in the face to their memory as well. He even posted the following:

Just signed this petition, and wrote the library directly. There should be no place for anti-trans rhetoric in our library system. Remove Anti-Trans Hate From Halifax Public Libraries - Sign the Petition! https://t.co/L9lhqGqm7H via @CdnChange

— Tim Hanley (@timhanley01) May 30, 2021

So he buys into this transsexuality propaganda too, and what next, will he throw his full support behind allowing men claiming to be the opposite sex into bathrooms reserved for the ladies? This is why Israeli-American columnist Ruthie Blum once lamented the failure of schools to teach boys to defend a woman's honor and dignity these days.

I've taken a look at a few other subjects on Mr. Hanley's own site, and he sure does offer a lot of telling clues what's wrong with his thinking. His site, with entries spanning at least a decade, is a stunning goldmine of absurd social justice propaganda. Here's an early entry, where he blabbers about underrepresentation of women in the industry:

Women account for half of all human beings on the planet, but in terms of making comic books they are seriously under-represented. This shouldn’t be a shocking piece of information to anyone… we all know that comics are a male-dominated industry. But we know this anecdotally, not with solid numbers behind it or breakdowns of what women are doing where. Thus, this women in comics statistics project.

Comic books come out every Wednesday, and for all of 2011 I will examine the comics released each week by the industry’s two biggest companies, Marvel and DC Comics, and chart the credits along gender lines. [...]

And movies and music aren't male-dominated in any way? Let's put it this way. It's not like the industry never did anything wrong. I've commented on their most greivous errors for over 15 years now. But the problem with his arguments is that, despite any attempts to persuade to the contrary, he largely refuses to consider talent and merit important factors for hiring, and past lady contributors like Marie Severin and Ann Nocenti don't seem to mean anything to him. Yet what does is the Big Two:

Why Marvel and DC: Ideally, I’d look at every comic from every company, but a) that’s a TON of comics, and b) full credits are really hard to find for smaller companies (but if you are a non-Marvel or non-DC company that would like to send me all their credits pages each week, I would gladly chart them up!!). Plus, together Marvel and DC account for nearly 70% of the comics sold in a given month, along with well over 80% of the top 300 comics sold. So yes, there’s going to be a mainstream, superhero bias to these stats… but the vast majority of the comic books people are buying will be accounted for.

He fails to understand a]not many women may want to work for them even now because of the shoddiest examples they published at the time Quesada/DiDio were in charge, where a number of items they put out were full of reprehensible mistreatment of women through violence and such, b]they may feel there's no creative freedom, and the universe wide crossovers are no improvement, and c]in addition, the job just doesn't pay much money any more than animation studios do. Yet I can't say that in what I've read, I've seen him arguing women should get into the gigs for the glory more than the money either. So his statistics for ladies' employment over the past decade are meaningless if he's going to be so fluff-coated. He also said:

So there you have it. I think this will be very interesting… I’m not trying to call out publishers, or suggest they go start hiring women just to look better or anything. I’m just trying to provide numbers for something that we all know is anecdotally true. Frankly, comic books have been aimed at males for decades now, and most of the people working on them today were the boys to which they were marketed. The industry hasn’t created an environment where one should expect a fair number of female creators… it’s very much a boy’s club. And gender isn’t the only divide; it’s very much a white boy’s club too. But charts are fun, and I am curious as to what the current status of women in comic book industry actually is, not just anecdotally. Ultimately, perhaps seeing how the data breaks down will lead us to think about why the numbers are the way they are.

My my, this is also telling. If we take the Big Two's superhero output as an example, what's so wrong with Stan Lee for one forming a boys' club? Besides, if anybody wants to form a publisher that can promote a girls' club, they're quite welcome, yet socialist mentality's dictated that established franchises must be exploited almost entirely to push the shoddy agenda Mr. Hanley has for over a decade now. Big problem: from what I've checked on his site, I've never seen him complain why Joe Quesada and Dan DiDio should be fired from the publishers, as the latter was last year. And that's one of the reasons why they were able to hold onto their positions as long as they did, or still are: nobody's willing to stand up and boldly say why those truly accountable must be giving the pink slip. Here's another post he wrote that's quite insulting, where he implied something was wrong with "60-year old white guys" like the late Len Wein being hired to script miniseries for DC 6 years back:

I fail to see how a group of men with an average age of 62.3 years old are, to quote DiDio, “the best writers for these characters” when the task is to freshen up and contemporize them. All of these men are certainly talented writers and I respect their work and, for several of them, their legacies, but the last thing the superhero world needs more of is old, white guys reintroducing characters and trying to make them relevant and interesting. That rarely goes well. Especially when so many of them have such close ties to past incarnations of the characters. This is where you introduce new voices and new talent, find the NEW Marv Wolfman and the NEW Len Wein, not bring back the same old creators. This would be a KILLER lineup in 1987, but it’s not 1987 anymore.

It's not a time of sanity anymore either, and Hanley was only precipitating a terrible situation where whites, no matter their age or sex, are discriminated against. Would he have said this about veteran black writers like Christopher Priest? I doubt he'd be that stupid, but then, why is it okay to say Wein and Marv Wolfman are obsolete because of their age, merely because they're white (and Jewish)? Again, I can't say I've noticed much criticism leveled by Hanley against DiDio for more valid reasons, like the obnoxious misogyny he injected into comics during the mid-2000s, and however he was handling the DC output around this later time, it was no improvement, artistically or otherwise. Hanley got some pushback about this post, and he attempted to minimize the damage with the following:

I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that guys like Wein, Wolfman, et al. shouldn’t be getting work. They’re legends. However, a line written primarily by white men who’ve been in comics for decades sends, intentionally or not, a bad message about diversity.

I understand that comics is a rough industry for older creators, and my problem isn’t with them for doing the gigs. But it’s also a tough industry for women and POC who have been rarely afforded the opportunity to break into the Big Two in the first place.

My issue is with DC for not putting together a more diverse and representative line. Hire some old white guys, sure, but ALSO hire woefully underrepresented folks getting their first shot at superheroes. Doing just the former doesn’t send a great message.

And for everyone going “But DC’s June #DCYou books!” Yes, ONE TIME DC put together a slightly more diverse lineup. SLIGHTLY. That doesn’t mean they can stop doing that now, or that it’s cool to even things out with these new minis.

Gee, he sure was pretty frantic to offer an alleged apology. Since when hasn't the industry been hiring "underrepresented folks" like Blacks/Asians/Latinos? I've written before about Matt Baker, the guy most famous for illustrating Phantom Lady of the Freedom Fighters. And DC practically has a man of Asian descent, Jim Lee, in a prominent executive role, even if his politics are sadly reprehensible. Also, considering how bad the Big Two became artistically and in terms of creative freedom, what's the use of working there at this time anyway? Nobody creative will benefit, no matter their racial background. And turning back to Hanley, a big problem with his argument is that, despite any attempts to sound otherwise, he's putting diversity entirely above artistic talent and merit. If such are lacking, what's the use of hiring a particular writer/artist at all? Here's some examples of the replies he got on the page proper, including:

Ageist Bigot

And then:

I get that you’re trying to take a “progressive” look and stance to modern comics, you just seem a little misguided here. Not to mention that focussing so much on the age of the writers involved makes you look completely ageist. A balance needs to be found between modernisation and classic, and judging by their current line up of monthlies and these new minis announced, DC look to be doing a great job in the regard. As I said, DC You is for everyone, not just young new readers.

The line was a failure regardless, and Hanley's "progressive" ideology is exactly what's wrong with him. It practically led him to take the PLO's side at the expense of Siegel/Shuster's Jewish brethren. Another reply:

That was an absurdly ageist take on this.

And:

Ageist racist bigot.

And then, better still:

You are incredibly racist. How many more times could you mention “white guys”? How did this medium start out? Oh yeah, white guys. I’m tired of the white male being singled out. Do there need to be more women and people of other colors in comics? YES. Do the people who have established themselves need to be kicked to the side like leftover meatloaf? NO. Stop usurping the past and trying to replace current writers/artists and the heroes they created. Bring in fresh talent of all colors shapes and sizes. Create new characters. Enough with the whining and wimpering. You are not entitled to erase the past. Create your future.

Sadly, we're 6 years past this moment and Mr. Hanley's still plying his loathsome, petty ideologies at the expense of classic creations. Here's another good one:

“Old white guys.” Because there’s nothing fresh and contemporary to be found in the works of 60-year-old white guys. Wait, how old was Steve Jobs again?

As a Hispanic 30something man, I am sick and tired of the “White old men” boogeyman.

I am sorry, Wolfman -created- Raven. Made the Titans THE best selling book in DC during the 80s. If someone deserves to write a mini on Raven, it’s going to be goddamned Marv Wolfman, especially since Pfeiffer and Lobdell have made such a terrible spectacle of the Teen Titans.

You know, I understand that you are trying to advocate for diversity, but I thought that diversity meant inclusiveness, and that means *everybody*- not simply brown people like me and people with a strict cutoff at the age of 30something, brandishing a “Go Away” sign being waved in the face of any pale old dude.

As much as I respect your very insightful book on Wonder Woman, I am going to have to call you out and say- no, Tim, you are acting like a total ass right here, right now. Part of being actually diverse and individualistic includes listening to people who are often discarded and disregarded, people whom idiots and fools consider not worth anyone’s time because they assume they have nothing of worth.

Like “old” people. You assume they cannot create anything fresh, you assume they cannot find new angles, you assume they cannot tell new stories, that they cannot possibly have anything into which they can pour their considerable experience that could possibly fascinate anyone.

Because old people are only good for sitting back on their laurels and do nothing except ushering in the next generation gracefully, while tending to their gardens, kittens and tea kettles. Old me-

Wait.

What is that?

Over there- yes, I do believe it is the shadow of Sir Terry Pratchett, Tim.

He’s staring at you with such a look.

I cannot fathom what words he would say to you, but I imagine they are the kinds of words that would leave very strong scorch marks in the air.

You are a disappointment, Tim Hanley. For someone who allegedly admires Wonder Woman for her message of compassion and acceptance, you have demonstrated a very ugly side of yourself.

On that, I fully agree. Hanley's a hypocritical leftist who even goes out of his way to support the wrong sides of an issue, and whether he's uninformed, it's still no excuse. Mainly because well before this, he was already pandering to Islamophilia, and gushing over some of G. Willow Wilson's worst propaganda, here being Alif the Unseen:

I also really liked that not only is the strongest and bravest character in the book a woman, but Dina’s a woman who’s chosen to wear the niqab, the black veil. Lately debates have raged about veiling and whether or not it should be outlawed, and most of these conversations seemed to ignore the issue of choice for a woman herself. The decision to veil or not became her father or husband forcing her to wear it OR the state forcing her not to. Now, of course many women are forced to wear a veil who don’t want to, but there are also women who DO want to. Dina chooses to wear the niqab even against the wishes of her family because it means something to her, and she’s no weak-willed wallflower. Being devout to Islamic law and being a strong woman aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, and Dina was a great character who walked that line.

SIDENOTE: Veiling is a super complex issue, even if you agree that it should be a matter of choice for the woman. For example, sure a woman might choose to wear a veil, but is the religion and culture that encourages veiling so inherently patriarchal and oppressive to women that choosing to wear the veil is actually just participating in your own subjugation? And even if it is, I suppose you should have the freedom to so subjugate yourself, right? I don’t have any answers… I just very much appreciated how Wilson addressed the issue in the novel and made it Dina’s choice.

As somebody who finds the Haredi/ultra-Orthodox lifestyle demeaning to women, even if it's not going as far as Islam's belief a woman should be veiled (although there are some clans who made use of it, and even a cult called Lev Tahor made use of similar outfits), I find it repellent Mr. Hanley would take such a lenient position on the whole notion such self-isolation from society is acceptable, and his ostensible admittance there's women forced against their will to wear such denigrating outfits does nothing to alleviate concerns. It goes without saying I cannot accept such outfits in any religion, not even Catholicism's concept of the nun's wimple dress, because it all makes women's sexuality and beauty out to look like the worst thing that could happen, and is insulting a woman's body. Or, put another way, it's insulting God by extension, since God gave women their physical attributes, and now, look where things have wound up by extension in an era where the left is denigrating both women and men, and indoctrinating them into sex-change operations that can do serious harm, along with encouraging rejection of the opposite sex for the sake of homosexuality. That Mr. Hanley lacks a clear answer on whether women should be encouraged to accept the degrading idea of veiling themselves is another serious problem with his approach. It's no better than an inability to express a clear opinion on whether punk lifestyles like mohawks and noserings are healthy for the mind and body, let alone cocaine abuse. Mr. Hanley is shameful. He doesn't even consider apostates from Islam who find that abandoning the Religion of Peace gives them a much better perspective on life.

Here's also something he said about Frank Cho:

This weekend, artist Frank Cho announced on his Facebook page that he’ll be drawing variant covers for Wonder Woman when the series relaunches this June as part of DC’s “Rebirth” line. Several sites are reporting that he’ll be on the book for a year, and since it’s shipping bi-monthly that means 24 covers. Cho is an artist best known for doing sexy pin-ups and while his work isn’t really my jam, he’s certainly very good at what he does. He’s also drawn some cool, non-hypersexualized stuff when reined it, and hopefully he brings some of that restraint to Wonder Woman. Cho’s got definite skills. However, he’s also a real twit.

It all started a while back when Marvel inexplicably decided that it would be a fun idea to hire famed erotica artist Milo Manara to draw variant covers starring their female characters. He did a Spider-Woman cover that had the character bizarrely positioned with her butt poised high in the air, and the cover drew a lot of criticism. It was poorly drawn, and the sexualized pose wasn’t a good reflection of the contents of the new Spider-Woman series. Marvel eventually decided not to release the cover.

Umm, they did release it, but with a large Spider-Woman logo over the supposedly offending part, whose only mistake was that it just wasn't very appealing artistically. By the way, is that good manners to call somebody a "twit", just like that? For somebody who'd surely consider himself a public figure, Hanley's setting a pretty poor example.

For some reason, Frank Cho decided that this was the hill he wanted to die on. He did a commission of Spider-Gwen on a blank sketch cover, mimicking the Manara pose. When folks were all, “Come on, man,” Cho blasted the “small group of angry and humorless people ranting against my DRAWING of a pretty woman,” telling them that they should “just grow a sense of humor and relax.” He then doubled down on the pose, drawing Harley Quinn in the same position. Over the past year, he’s done several of these pieces, reveling in the controversy he’s causing and proudly posting them on the internet like he’s some sort of brave rebel (he’s not).

The reaction to Cho’s pieces have brought him some vocal defenders, many of whom are the sort of men (they’re all men) who use the term “social justice warrior” unironically. They see Cho as a defender of free speech, a valiant hero saving the comic book industry from the scourge of evil feminists who are ruining their funny books. Cho tried to capitalize on the support of these dopes by following the posting of one of his sketches with a campaign where he sold “Friends of Cho” t-shirts. The ad for the shirts asked, “Are you outraged by the outrage?” and offered his fans the opportunity to stand with him (he only sold 21 one of them online).

So what he's saying is every artist of Cho's caliber has no female fans? I'm think that's disputable too. Does this also mean Hanley believes Spider-Man, for instance, isn't their funnybook? I guess that sums it up. It's too bad that since this was written, Cho had to go and attack Comicsgate using the F-word, and alienated a lot of people when he could've avoided causing trouble. But speaking of Comicsgate, look what Hanley said the other year about Blake Northcott:

...Elsewhere, Blake Northcott is co-writing Catwoman this month, which I am less excited about. She’s been ComicsGate adjacent for a while now, and I’m not terribly thrilled when anyone associated with that hate group lands a mainstream gig.

Strange, aside from her being a leftist, I don't think she ever said she supported the campaign. I guess her refusal to actually come out against it is why he decided she was. But look at that - when ideological divides come into the picture, suddenly, a man who writes sugarcoated takes on many items related to lady writers decides he's against her. In any case, she's largely disappeared from comics over the past year, possibly because now, she's working on films and TV.

Here's more on Hanley's predictable gushing over the Muslim Ms. Marvel book:

While Kelly Sue DeConnick and David Lopez are set to relaunch Captain Marvel this March, a new character is taking over Carol Danvers’ old identity of Ms. Marvel in February. Kamala Khan is an American teen girl of Pakistani origin, and when she discovers she has super powers, including the ability to change shapes, she takes the mantle of her hero Ms. Marvel.

The book is written by G. Willow Wilson, who has done some fantastic comic work including the Vertigo graphic novel Cairo and the recent CrossGen/Marvel mini-series Mystic. Her novel Alif the Unseen is also absolutely fantastic. Kamala is Muslim, and Wilson is a convert to Islam, giving her a unique perspective for writing the character. The art is by Adrian Alphona, best known for his great work on Runaways. He’s also Canadian, which makes him extra cool. The cover above is by Sara Pichelli, who I hope is the regular cover artist for the series because she’s super good.

This book sounds interesting, boasts a stellar creative team, and is a new and original direction for a superhero title. It’s also exactly what Marvel needs given some recent unfortunate trends at the company.

And by that, he means "too sexy" for his political/ideological beliefs, right? This guy is truly disgusting with his leftism, and of course, his automatic support was a precursor for his recent pro-Hamas, anti-Israeli propaganda, that, interestingly enough, ignores what another famous woman, Golda Meir, said regarding "palestine".

Now, another item prior to release of the first Wonder Woman movie with Gal Gadot, where he attacks Fox News for all the wrong reasons:

First, they got upset about Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman costume because it didn’t have the halter top and short shorts that they liked, or the patriot markings of the classic outfit. Then, somewhat bizarrely, they also took issue with the dark colour scheme and the fact that Wonder Woman has to share her movie debut with Superman and Batman, which was an odd moment for me to say the least. Hearing people on Fox News say things I actually agreed with made me re-evaluate my entire life and every decision I’ve ever made, but after that life crisis I continued on with the video and things got ridiculous again.

Nowhere near as ridiculous as Hanley's politics. And at the end, he let slip what's really wrong with his visions:

Anyway, that was some great work by Fox News, getting outraged about a comic story from four years ago in the most offensive and sexist ways possible. I don’t understand why these people have a network. Why do you let them talk, America? I mean, I understand free speech and all, but they’re just so goddamn dumb.

Gee, if you don't like their alleged rightist leanings, don't watch them! I'm not fooled by Hanley's supposed insistence he "understands" free speech values either, and his accusations of sexism are pathetically cheap. If I were an artist and created a rabbi's daughter wearing a bikini, and he made accusations of sexism, I'd be furious. He's giving a very bad impression of a Canadian leftist, that's for sure. But, he sure does reveal quite a bit more what he thinks of men who love women in the following review of a WW comic by Wilson from 2019:

I’m very much enjoying this identity crisis of the gods. First, we have Ares wanting to give up war for justice. That’s gone quite poorly so far, of course, due to his engrained toxic masculinity more than anything else, but it’s been a very interesting turn for the character. And now, Aphrodite wants to separate herself from love. She doesn’t seem to have a plan of where to go from there, what new cause to champion, if any. She’s just tired of being’s love representative.

It sounds like we have quite a double whammy here. On the one hand, Ares embodies that atrocious anti-heterosexual propaganda called "toxic masculinity". On the other hand, Aphrodite doesn't want to represent the concept of love anymore? But then, it's long been apparent many far-leftists are thrilled to stuff as much propaganda into their stories as possible.

I'm glad I don't own any of Hanley's history books. Disgraceful people like him with such loathsome politics tend to be the least reliable on these pop culture subjects anyway. If they could spout all this reprehensible tommyrot, why should we expect them to be the most accurate on any subject since their ideology could play into their approach? Why should we even believe they supposedly don't approve of Fredric Wertham, who had similar positions? If this is how men like Hanley intend to ply their trade, nobody with common sense should waste their money on his publications. Again, let's be clear, he's desecrated the Jewish originators of the industry, including, but not limited to, Siegel, Shuster, Lee, Kirby and even Wein, among others. Why, now that I think of it, the worst part of Mr. Hanley's propaganda is that he's engaged in otherizing the people who made superhero comics possible in the first place.

Once again, a phony comics fan talks out of both sides of his mouth

I found some more, quite fascinating drivel and double talk coming out of the mouth of one Andrew Smith, who's written the Captain Comics columns for various newspapers in syndication for a quarter century, and isn't doing any better now. Let's first begin with what he said on a topic about Muslim artist Ardian Syaf, who was caught sticking his subtle propaganda into a new X-Men series:

I'd have fired him, whatever the message, even if it's "Hi, mom." Slip a personal message into a newspaper sometime, and see how fast security is at your desk. Publishers have to have zero tolerance for this sort of thing.

Given the content, though, this is extra wrong. It's exclusionary and offensive to X number of readers, and whatever "X" is, it's too high. The correct number of readers who should be offended by your publication is "zero."

Outside of all that, I was amused at Syaf's response that the insertions were messages of "justice" and "love." The inquisition used love as an excuse for forced conversion to Christianity, as have many other religious movements. And one man's "justice" is another man's "oppression," so Syaf could use a little self-examination.

I think Mr. Smith could use a bit of self-examination himself, after discovering the following retweet he posted on his Twitter page, which can be seen in the following screencap:

So he was casting his support for somebody who believes being a Muslim makes them fully qualified to be in the USA? (His Twitter profile said he's also a Black Lives Matter supporter.) Yawn. What else is new? Why should we believe somebody who's basically giving his approval to the Religion of Rape really has a problem with putting quranic verses into the backgrounds of mainstream comic books?

And note to Mr. Smith: if you really recognize it's not the 1950s anymore, then wake up and smell the coffee. We live in a world where bad ideologies, religious or otherwise, has taken a terrible toll upon the world. Who's really missing the numbers here? On his own site, he continued with:

And that is why, if you're the editor, you have to have a zero-tolerance policy.

Since I've been an editor for 30 years, that's really the only viewpoint I know. I can see as a reader that it might be fun, or funny, to allow inside jokes and the like. But as an editor, you just can't let it happen. You can't open that door, even a smidge.

As soon as you let, say, Neal Adams put in something not approved through editorial process, then it becomes a judgment call. Why can't Adrian Syaf put something in, when Neal Adams can? Why, because what Syaf did is "bad," whereas what Adams did was "funny."

Who says? Well, I'll tell you: a judge. Because if you let Adams do it, then Syaf can do it. If you say Syaf can't but a white guy can (with a wink and a chuckle all 'round), then you've got a lawsuit. And it's a valid one that you will probably lose.

If you're a professional, you can't get sucked into the "subjective" game. Either you allow it, or you don't.

And unfortunately, Marvel did, well before Syaf was discovered. They've allowed not just G. Willow Wilson to push a false portrait of Islam, they've also enabled other writers to do the same (Mark Waid wrote a Daredevil story doing this, and also a book called "Champions", which was just as defeatist). When you have a whole company management allowing taqqiya to prevail in terms of writing, it's no wonder the actual abominations could ultimately find their way into books too. So what's this hypocrite's point? Some of the leftists on his site have been upholding the insults to the intellect as well, and Mr. Smith once wrote a fawning review of the Green Lantern issues introducing the Muslim member named Simon Baz. If they didn't have a problem with Islam before, I doubt they actually have one now. The topic will probably be allowed to slip into the past, and when they think the time is right, Mr. Smith and his fellow leftists in the press will go right back to apologia as before.

I don't see any serious change in Mr. Smith's conduct, and if he really understood why the quran is a bad influence, he wouldn't be going miles out of his way to support its advocates.

Newsweek believes America needs a Muslim superheroine

Newsweek just published this laughable piece arguing that the USA needs the Muslim Ms. Marvel as a "hero", claiming she's "best equipped" for the job:

During the first few weeks of the Trump administration, we’ve seen increased pressure on Muslim and immigrant communities in the United States.

In the face of these threats, which Marvel superhero might be best equipped to defend the people, ideals and institutions under attack? Some comic fans and critics are pointing to Kamala Khan, the new Ms. Marvel.

Some very left-wing "fans/critics" are pointing to a character created more as a political statement than a true entertainment vehicle, and when the moonbats who came up with the idea to characterize her as such whitewash the entire Religion of Peace, and call all dissenters liars, is it any wonder the book doesn't hold up?

Khan, the brainchild of comic writer G. Willow Wilson and editor Sana Amanat, is a revamp of the classic Ms. Marvel character (originally named Carol Danvers and created in 1968). First introduced in early 2014, Khan is a Muslim, Pakistani-American teenager who fights crime in Jersey City and occasionally teams up with the Avengers.

Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, fans have created images of Khan tearing up a photo of the president, punching him (evoking a famous 1941 cover of Captain America punching Hitler) and grieving in her room. But the new Ms. Marvel’s significance extends beyond symbolism.

Wow...what kind of "fans" are these exactly? They're actually hurting the character they supposedly root for more than helping. It's not just Trump they're being "tolerant" of. Some way to respect at least half the nation too.

In Kamala Khan, Wilson and Amanat have created a superhero whose patriotism and contributions to Jersey City emerge because of her Muslim heritage, not despite it. She challenges the assumptions many Americans have about Muslims and is a radical departure from how the media tend to depict Muslim-Americans. She shows how Muslim-Americans and immigrants are not forces that threaten communities – as some would argue – but are people who can strengthen and preserve them.

Reading this part made me fall to the floor laughing. By their definition, even Daily KOS and the New York Times, some of the most Islamophilic news sources around, would be depicting Islamists in a negative light. This comes from the European division of Newsweek, but even so, I doubt the writer of this silly propaganda believes a word she's saying. And if she won't quote or acknowledge a single verse in the Koran/Hadith, then I just don't see what her point is. Then, as if more proof were needed the series is already politicized, it's noted that:

...Khan cites her family’s safety and her desire to lead a normal life, while also fearing that “the NSA will wiretap our mosque or something.”

What that's de-facto saying is, it's wrong to keep surveillance on any mosque in real life. And if the character's safety matters, what about that of many other US residents?

The comics paint an accurate portrait of Jersey City. Her brother Aamir is a committed Salafi (a conservative and sometimes controversial branch of Sunni Islam) and member of his university’s Muslim Student Association. Her best friend and occasional love interest, Bruno, works at a corner store and comes from Italian roots. The city’s diversity helps Kamala as she learns to be a more effective superhero. But it also rescues her from being a stand-in for all Muslim-American or Jersey City experiences.

An accurate portrayal? No doubt. They certainly don't paint a respectable one, if they even go so far as to attack Bernie Sanders, confirming the writers don't even like their fellow Democrats. And they're whitewashing Salafism, predictably. Just how is Salafism only sometimes controversial?

As one of 3.3 million Muslim-Americans, Khan flips the script on what Moustafa Bayoumi, author of “This Muslim American Life,” calls a “war on terror culture” that sees Muslim-Americans “not as complex human being[s] but only as purveyor[s] of possible future violence.”

Bayoumi’s book echoes other studies that detail the heightened suspicion and racial profiling Muslim-Americans have faced since 9/11, whether it’s in the workplace or interactions with the police. Each time there’s been a high-profile terrorist attack, these experiences, coupled with hate crimes and speech, intensify. Political rhetoric – like Donald Trump’s proposal to have a Muslim registry or his lie that thousands of Muslims cheered from Jersey City rooftops after the Twin Towers fell – only fans the flames.

It's getting pretty obvious at this point this is more an attack on Trump than a sincere argument. What they're doing here is little more than confusing race and religion/ideology. And look how she refuses to acknowledge Trump did have evidence to back up his accusations there were Muslims celebrating: some NJ police witnessed local Islamists doing so, and here's more information that tells even Dan Rather found proof there were Islamists out there who celebrated the acts of evil on 9-11. The writer goes on to give a description of one of the stories in the Marvel series:

...in one of Ms. Marvel’s most powerful narrative arcs, a planet attacks New York, leading to destruction eerily reminiscent of 9/11. Kamala works to protect Jersey City while realizing that her world has changed – and will change – irrevocably.

Gee, a whole planet? And it's probably not even Ego, the living planet seen in the Fantastic Four back in the early 1980s. But what if is a metaphor for right-wingers, and built on Trutherism? If so, it'll only further compound any concerns the book is more a political rant than anything else.

Kamala Khan is precisely the hero America needs today, but not because of a bat sign in the sky or any single definitive image. She is, above all, committed to the idea that every member of her faith, her generation, and her city has value and that their lives should be respected and protected. She demonstrates that the most heroic action is to face even the most despair-inducing challenges of the world head on while standing up for – and empowering – every vulnerable neighbor, classmate or stranger. She shows us how diverse representation can transform into action and organization that connect whole communities “by something you can’t break.”

Except they did break it. They broke the entertainment value of Marvel, and turned it all into a political rant, much like this article. Say, if they really think a character who adheres to Islam is the "hero" America needs today, how come they don't think the same about say, Joe Mannix, who's Armenian? Or if a Canadian resident counts, how about Alpha Flight's Sasquatch/Walter Langkowski, who's got Polish ancestry? This whole article is nothing more than a selfish bit of twaddle by somebody who's simply not being altruistic, and doesn't consider that comics like these are among the reasons why Trump got elected.

EPA HAS A SUGGESTION FOR A MUSLIMA HEROINE:

Give'em hell, Wafa, and make'em, like it

The Muslim Ms. Marvel is being pushed into animation

I'd once heard the claim Marvel's movie/TV division was supposedly independent of what goes on in the comics company. But this news suggests that's a rather farfetched claim, as now, some of the PC diversity tactics already seen in Marvel's recent output is now being forced into their cartoon productions to boot:

Announced at San Diego Comic-Con today, the fourth season of Avengers will focus on a new team of heroes, in the wake of the disappearance of the usual team: Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel, Jane Foster’s Thor, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Wasp, and Vision. [...]

And this page has a picture confirming it's the Kamala Khan character who's taking the Ms. Marvel role, while Carol Danvers is in the Captain role. I wonder who's in the role of Ant-Man? It won't be shocking if that too has been drastically altered so it's not even Scott Lang.

The live action movie screenplays may not have been seriously affected by this contrived propaganda so far. But that doesn't mean it'll stay that way for long. Even they might fall victim to it sooner or later. In fact, as the Verge has just noted, the planned movie starring Carol Danvers is going to be named Captain Marvel, not Ms. Marvel, suggesting the history involving Mar-Vell of the Kree is going to be conveniently obscured, perhaps because the anti-communist metaphors in the original 1967 premise are considered unsuitable by today's leftists who're also prevalent in Marvel's movie production.

In any case, the news about the Avengers cartoon explains why I'm starting to feel uneasy about supporting their movies, because some of the same people working on the comics are involved in some form or other on the films too. Why must we support them even in Hollywood? That may be just what's encouraging them to keep this up.

Hey Lefties, ISIS Has Got Your Number

From PJM:

An ISIS e-book on how to accomplish their caliphate goal of sacking Rome stresses enlisting “the Islamic State’s secret weapon = secret white converts” to take on Italy. Much of the book, “Black Flags from Rome,” is dedicated to laying out a case for why Muslims in Europe should rise up and assist ISIS from within, citing justifications for discontent from modern-day anti-immigration protests back to post-Ottoman creation of Muslim “ghettos.”   

It states that European Muslims can ally with “a growing population of left-winged activists (people who are against; human/animal abuses, Zionism, and Austerity measures etc)” who “look up to the Muslims as a force who are strong enough to fight against the injustices of the world” in countering a growing divide between Muslims and “right-wing neo-Nazis.” 

It specifically cites people who are “sometimes” allied with Anonymous or anarchy groups — even though, angered by the assault on Charlie Hebdo, Anonymous is currently carrying out a hacking operation to take down ISIS accounts. 

“If you have ever been at a pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protest, you will see many activists who are not even Muslims who are supportive of what Muslims are calling for (the fall of Zionism). It is most likely here that connections between Muslims and Left-wing activists will be made, and a portion from them will realise that protests are not effective, and that armed combat is the alternative,” the book states. 

“So they will start to work together in small cells of groups to fight and sabotage against the ‘financial elite’.” The book predicts such “recruits” sympathetic to their cause “will give intelligence, share weapons and do undercover work for the Muslims to pave the way for the conquest of Rome.”

Geoff Johns is now exploiting Green Lantern for political diversity

Well, it looks like overrated comics writer Johns continues to show just how mindless he's become, as he now turns to pandering in a politicized way. First, here's what they tell about what he's done to Hal Jordan on the Dixonverse:

Now DC has killed Hal Jordan off (Sinestro too) in another cheap publicity stunt. Yes, I'm sure they'll bring him back in a year or two (maybe), but it's still the same hackish, no-talent stunt we've come to expect from Dilapidated Comics. And now we've made the Guardians a villainish conspiracy theory, and Hal's replacement is an Arab guy that carries a .45 along with a power ring. Oh, and wears a luchador mask (DC's website's top 5 reasons for loving the Green Lantern universe: #2, Diversity! No, I'm not kidding. [link]). Behold, Green Lantern is now Space Punisher!. Anyone want to take bets on when the first nasty crack about Israel is written into his dialogue?

Which brings us to the sad revelation that the new character who'll wield a GL ring is going to be a Muslim after all:

Baz's story begins in a standalone "zero issue" available Wednesday that's part of a companywide effort to fill in the gaps or tell the origins of a character or team. Johns has no plans for Baz to fade into the background — the character in February is bound for the Justice League of America, one of DC's premier super team books, to fight alongside Green Arrow, Catwoman and Hawkman.

Johns said he took economic as well as ethnic cues for the character from his native Detroit area, with Baz resorting to stealing cars after being laid off from his automotive engineering job. He steals the wrong car, which inadvertently steers him into a terrorism probe and, eventually, an unexpected call to join the universe's galactic police force.

The olive-skinned, burly Baz hails from Dearborn, the hometown of Henry Ford and the capital of Arab America. His story begins at 10 years old, when he and the rest of his Muslim family watch their television in horror as airplanes fly into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Events unfold from there as U.S. Arabs and Muslims find themselves falling under intense suspicion and ostracism in the days, months and years following the attacks.

"Obviously, it's affecting everybody," said Johns, who grew up in nearby suburbs in a Lebanese Christian household and got into comics when he discovered his uncle's old collection in his Arab grandmother's attic. "One of the things I really wanted to show was its effect on Simon and his family in a very negative way."

Now that's really strange that someone from a background like Johns', instead of drawing on his own religious background, prefers to base it on a religion that views his own as inferior. It's almost like he's saying his own beliefs are inferior. And it certainly reeks of dhimmitude and a disinterest in refuting the stereotype that all Arabs are Muslims. Given what the story structure is like, it's clear that there's little chance Baz will ever be seen dealing with crimes involving Muslims persecuting Christians, Jews, women, or even gays and lesbians. Nor will he be coming to the aid of targets of honor killings, or even groups like 9-11 Families for a Safe and Strong America who still have to fight to get the memorials dedicated to the real victims completed.

Johns, who also has written stories starring Superman, The Flash and Teen Titans, said going diverse only works if there's a good story, and he believes he found that with Baz. But don't mistake him for a hero in the beginning: Baz disappoints both devout Muslims — his forearm tattoo that reads "courage" in Arabic is considered "haram," or religiously forbidden — and broader society by turning to a life of crime.

"He's not a perfect character. He's obviously made some mistakes in his life, but that makes him more compelling and relatable," he said. "Hopefully (it's) a compelling character regardless of culture or ethnic background. ... But I think it's great to have an Arab-American superhero. This was opportunity and a chance to really go for it."

An Arab, yes, but a Muslim, no. One could wonder just what kind of reception a character with religious beliefs like Baz would give to Alan Scott now that he's been turned homosexual, and Chuck Dixon himself asked, "Will the Muslim Lantern use his gun to kill Alan Scott?" I don't think many Muslims would like Scott's new state either.

Johns also sees the debut of Baz as a chance to reconnect with people in his home state: He's scheduled to visit Dearborn this weekend for events related to the release that include a signing Friday at a comic book store and a free presentation Saturday on his career and characters at the Arab American National Museum. He worked with museum staff to make sure he got certain details right about his character and the Arab-Muslim community.

Oh, I'll bet he did, with a lot of taqqiya (deception) included in the uncreative input.

"It doesn't completely define the character but it shapes the character," he said. "My biggest hope is that people embrace it and understand what we're trying to do."

Oh we understand alright; he's trying to "exonerate" the Religion of Peace, and is basically -  and naively - aiding victimology. This is the clearest form of politicized storytelling he's come up with ever since he wrote Avengers: Red Zone a decade ago, the padded-out story where Captain America found a government lab around Mt. Rushmore that released toxic gases and said, "this wasn't the work of any terrorist. This was from us." And where Red Skull claims Black Panther was behind the development. And where two soldiers on board an airship semi-threatened Vision to scram with an injured child because "we're loaded to capacity. Any more weight and we'll drop" even as the space they were in was practically empty.

The New York Daily News has more gushing going on:

DC Comics is unveiling its newest super hero Wednesday — a Muslim Arab-American being interrogated by Homeland Security when he’s fitted for the cosmic powered ring.

Meet Simon Baz of Dearborn, Mich., who grew up dealing with prejudice in a post 9/11 America.

This sounds almost like a story by Chris Roberson DC was planning to run in Superman last year but scrapped because it was very possibly offensive to Americans; it could've depicted them in very degrading lights. Why wouldn't it be surprising if the same happens here?

The original Green Lantern, Alan Scott, a character first introduced in the 1940, was reimagined earlier this year as a homosexual hero in another series.

“At this point, after making Alan Scott gay — that was sort of the big one. Other than a few idiots who somehow felt it was a betrayal, there doesn’t seem to be many people offended,” says Harry Knowles, founder of Ain’t It Cool News, a geek culture news website.

Oh, but there are, and maybe DC doesn't think so, but as even Chuck Dixon implied, Muslims could be too!

The galling political dhimmitude aside, what's also sad here is how, even if Hal Jordan hasn't been killed off, he's still been victimized once again by publicity stunt tactics for the sake of introducing a Kyle Rayner 2.0 and what Johns is doing to the Guardians is despicable too. All these current steps explain perfectly why I shunned his work several years ago after he desecrated the Flash with repellant violence and made things worse after he killed off the infant whose mother he'd first rubbed out in Rogues Revenge. Just like James Robinson, he too is, in his own way, getting lost in a forest of political correctness.