Israel faces a double western denial

Israel finds itself confronted with a double denial from the West. On one hand, there's the denial of its role, perhaps involuntarily, as a defender of a civilization that once prioritized values such as life, justice, tolerance, freedom, and human equality. On the other hand, there's the denial of history, both in the Western and Eastern worlds, as well as a denial of reality itself. 

"Move along, there's nothing to see here!" For there to be nothing to see, the inversion of values becomes essential.

The victim of numerous acts of aggression, and ultimately of this barbaric attack, is, against all evidence, transformed into the perpetrator. The phenomenon, not entirely new, stems from a slow and progressive erosion of the intellectual foundations of the democratic world, including the questioning of its own history and its struggles for equality and justice, along with the erasure of the enduring conflicts with an Islam that has been expansionist since its inception.

What about the Balkans, Constantinople, Spain and Portugal, southern France, Sicily, and Greece? What about the Barbary pirates? Today, Islam, or rather the Ummah, the Muslim community, leads the only enduring and expanding form of colonialism. Its effects are visible in Africa, Asia, Europe, and even in America, with its violent actions and its claims opposed to local values and customs. It's a clash of civilizations.

All of this arises from the emergence of a pointless victimhood competition, an absurd deconstruction of history, and the emphasis on a "crime" of colonization. 

Haven't all peoples throughout history engaged in colonization? Just because we rarely hear about their warlike tribulations doesn't mean that these colonial conquests didn't exist; the great African empires of the past, for example, bear witness to this. And Islam itself is one of the greatest colonizers.

What's most astonishing about the decolonization of Algeria, which is always highlighted, is that France handed over this region to the previous Arab colonizers who had wiped out the Berber civilizations, their languages, their writings, and even their glorious past. 

Since then, in a sort of poorly digested Christianity, France, the former eldest daughter of the Church, constantly beats its breast. Welcome to the absurd.

Furthermore, it's not impossible that a deep-rooted, age-old prejudice against Jews, a lingering mist from a long history, is present in Western attitudes towards Israel. Just look at the incredible resurgence of virulent anti-Semitism and calls for genocide: "from the river to the sea," with no response from the states, without taking the opportunity to elevate the discourse and emphasize the values of humanity. Move along, there's nothing to hear either.

These deviations thrive on unjustifiable equivalences drawn between the deaths resulting from a clearly announced and documented genocidal attempt by the perpetrators themselves and the deaths—despite all attempts to spare Gaza's civilians—in the inevitable Israeli military response.

These deviations have also manifested in the absurd terminology of "revenge" that some have tried to apply to Israel's defense. 

Faced with the absolute inhumanity of the attack, an attack that used the defense of a people as an alibi but whose real objective is to establish a medieval theocracy, the only response can be a war against totalitarianism with its ostracism, subjugation of women, massacre of homosexuals, and dhimmitude imposed on non-Muslims—a war for values and justice. Whether Israel acknowledges it or not, this is a defense of what constituted the Western democratic world. Israel remains faithful to the teachings of Hillel the Elder: "Where there is no man, strive to be a man."

So, the hesitations of Western leaders taste like suicide. They don't seize the opportunity of tragedies to defend their culture and values; they let things go, joining the purveyors of short-sighted and thoughtless moralizing.

Calls for a ceasefire that only address Israel would only benefit the terrorists, facilitating their rearmament and leaving Gaza's residents under the continued rule of Islamist barbarism.

Calls for a two-state solution, which Arab movements have persistently refused, raise the question of the substance behind this recurring theme. 

Does it stem from the dream that Arabs think like the idea's proponents, that prosperity and economic development are part of Islamic thinking? It's a denial of the clash of civilizations. Those committed to Islamist ideology have always dreamt of a planet subjected to their law, Sharia, at any cost. They never cease... 

They start by attacking the small state of Israel, perhaps because they believed it might be a soft target; after all, there's quite a difference between what the mandate territory of the League of Nations for the Jewish National Home was and what remains of it.

The region of the small state of Israel had the misfortune of being colonized by Muslims in 638, and the Jews resisted conversion despite the laws of dhimmitude.

Moreover, it's worth noting that this age-old conflict, carried by Islam, in the Middle East and beyond, has adopted the creation of a people in 1964 as its banner in the Muslim world (59 countries) with its Arab League (21 countries).

Since the Ayatollahs came to power in 1979, a Shiite offensive has bloodied the planet, including France, with nuclear undertones. Iran has woven its web in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and has attempted to extend its influence to Sudan, with two objectives: to seize Mecca, the central place of Islam, and to wage its war against America (the Great Satan) and Israel (the Little Satan). 

The first leader received by Khomeini was Yasser Arafat, a powerful symbol.

The role of Iran in the offensives against Israel on October 7, 2023, is evident. 

Sunnite states follow more or less reluctantly, or in any case, few clearly choose their side and allow things to happen.

The Houthi offensive—surprisingly well-armed, one might add—illegally jeopardizes naval traffic, not only to Israel (is that an excuse?) but, more importantly, to the Suez Canal, which is an international problem.

A coalition is forming to free the straits and restore freedom of navigation. All it takes is a drop of water to set off the powder keg, if I may be so bold... 

Furthermore, China stands to be the main victim of this blockade; will it join the coalition? After all, there was once an American-Soviet alliance in the previous world conflict.

War also involves manipulating public opinion: hordes of protesters are unleashed to support the Islamist movement and its demands worldwide, especially in prestigious universities, particularly those generously funded by Qatar.

It's a gamble on the future! It's also important to consider the growing infiltration of influential Islamic organizations into institutions, particularly in Europe. One only needs to look to appreciate the global nature of this offensive.

Naturally, following its offensive turned military catastrophe, Hamas, in its direct line of communication, attempts to garner pseudo-legal support by astonishingly reversing intentions: the openly genocidal Hamas accuses Israel of having genocidal intentions!

A filing is made by South Africa, one of the most insecure states on the planet, a hub for funding for Hamas and Hezbollah and the organizer of anti-Semitic conferences in Durban.

This country, unaffected by the conflict but instrumentalized, aims to play a role of influence in what is commonly referred to as the Global South.

At the International Court of Justice, there is no need to provide proof of the accusation that falls on the accuser before any other jurisdiction.

What is primarily aimed at is a binding conservatory order requiring a suspension of Israeli military operations. The ICJ, after deliberation, does not issue this order, which, by the way, confirms that there is no apparent risk of ongoing genocide.

Yet, the Court has discredited itself by merely accepting the complaint.

Non-Western empires are observing this conflict with interest and wondering how they can benefit from this game. 

There is no question of morality or ethics here. Just power dynamics in other tensions.

In reality, this conflict is just one of the battles of the third world war in which natural allies are playing against themselves, they want to play "solo," as they say in football, and present themselves in isolation. 

A good way to lose. Will the West find a backbone?"