Are we inadvertently rewarding terrorism? Recent events suggest so. The aftermath of the October 7 attacks has revealed a disturbing pattern: instead of standing firm against extremism, some Western nations seem to be offering concessions. This shift raises critical questions about the effectiveness of our foreign policy and the message it sends to terrorist groups worldwide.

 

If you're like me, deeply concerned about the rise of Islamist extremism, you'll find these developments alarming. The danger it poses to Jewish communities globally and the threat it poses to liberal values and national security should not be underestimated. Yet, Western support for Israel's efforts to combat terrorism, particularly against Hamas, appears inconsistent and wavering.

 

Most of us want our governments to defend democracy and stand against terrorist threats. But why do our leaders seem hesitant to unequivocally support Israel's fight against Hamas? Why the reluctance to condemn terrorist acts and provide unwavering backing to those combating them? These are questions that demand answers.

 

Instead of adopting a stance of strength and resolve, some Western politicians appear to be pursuing a misguided approach of "peace without victory." This policy, reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's critique during the Cold War, risks emboldening our enemies and undermining our security. By avoiding direct confrontation, we may inadvertently signal weakness, encouraging further acts of terrorism.

 

The aftermath of the October 7 attacks serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of appeasement. The brutal massacre of innocents, accompanied by scenes of unspeakable horror, should have united us in condemnation and a resolve to combat terrorism. Yet, shockingly, we've witnessed a troubling phenomenon: a growing sympathy for the perpetrators and their cause.

 

From prestigious universities to city streets, there's a worrying trend of support for terrorism under the guise of "intifada." This wave of terror, claiming countless lives in suicide bombings and violent attacks, should not be met with tolerance or indifference. Yet, we find ourselves confronted with a disturbing lack of moral clarity and a reluctance to confront evil head-on.

 

Instead of confronting terrorism directly, we seem to be avoiding the difficult decisions necessary to combat it effectively. The reluctance to acknowledge the gravity of the threat posed by extremist groups like Hamas only emboldens them further. It's a dangerous game of appeasement that history has shown leads to disastrous consequences.

 

Reagan's warning about the dangers of appeasement rings true today more than ever. By appeasing our enemies and failing to confront them directly, we risk sending a dangerous message: that terrorism works. This is a message that must be unequivocally rejected if we are to ensure the safety and security of our communities.

 

The reluctance to confront terrorism head-on is not just a failure of leadership; it's a betrayal of our values and principles. We cannot afford to capitulate to the demands of terrorists or allow them to dictate our foreign policy. It's time for Western nations to stand united against extremism and send a clear message: terrorism will not be tolerated, and those who perpetrate it will be held accountable.

 

As we reflect on the events of October 7 and the troubling trends that have emerged since, let us remember the importance of standing firm against terrorism in all its forms. Our resolve and determination to combat extremism must not waver, for the sake of our security, our values, and our future.

 

2024-05-11

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Obviously an opinion piece.

 

Why are we not told who’s opinion it is?

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Are we inadvertently rewarding terrorism?

A bitter pill to swallow but its pretty obvious we are rewarding terrorism and always have. That's why hostages are still be taken for terrorism purposes all over the world. Despite the old saying never negotiate with terrorists that's precisely what the world does. With this latest events of the hostages taken by Hamas, Israel has bent over backwards to meet the terrorist demands despite the obvious fact they should be released immediately and with zero pre conditions.

completely agree, the Quran ends with the caliphate ruling the world, there is no compromise with them, they believe the nonsense with all their heart, mind and bullets. it can only end when everyone realizes that all religion is man made. it was always only nature.

I am reminded of these terrorists and religion,  every time I enter an airport.

Living and working in several Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, I became very much aware of the contempt they have for other religions. A reward in heaven for the killing of an infidel is a tenet deeply embedded in their faith. Very  worrying that so many liberal western democracies appear to have no conception of, or deny, the danger that is gradually encircling them. 

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Are we inadvertently rewarding terrorism? Recent events suggest so. The aftermath of the October 7 attacks has revealed a disturbing pattern: instead of standing firm against extremism, some Western nations seem to be offering concessions. This shift raises critical questions about the effectiveness of our foreign policy and the message it sends to terrorist groups worldwide.

 

If you're like me, deeply concerned about the rise of Islamist extremism, you'll find these developments alarming. The danger it poses to Jewish communities globally and the threat it poses to liberal values and national security should not be underestimated. Yet, Western support for Israel's efforts to combat terrorism, particularly against Hamas, appears inconsistent and wavering.

 

Most of us want our governments to defend democracy and stand against terrorist threats. But why do our leaders seem hesitant to unequivocally support Israel's fight against Hamas? Why the reluctance to condemn terrorist acts and provide unwavering backing to those combating them? These are questions that demand answers.

 

Instead of adopting a stance of strength and resolve, some Western politicians appear to be pursuing a misguided approach of "peace without victory." This policy, reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's critique during the Cold War, risks emboldening our enemies and undermining our security. By avoiding direct confrontation, we may inadvertently signal weakness, encouraging further acts of terrorism.

 

The aftermath of the October 7 attacks serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of appeasement. The brutal massacre of innocents, accompanied by scenes of unspeakable horror, should have united us in condemnation and a resolve to combat terrorism. Yet, shockingly, we've witnessed a troubling phenomenon: a growing sympathy for the perpetrators and their cause.

 

From prestigious universities to city streets, there's a worrying trend of support for terrorism under the guise of "intifada." This wave of terror, claiming countless lives in suicide bombings and violent attacks, should not be met with tolerance or indifference. Yet, we find ourselves confronted with a disturbing lack of moral clarity and a reluctance to confront evil head-on.

 

Instead of confronting terrorism directly, we seem to be avoiding the difficult decisions necessary to combat it effectively. The reluctance to acknowledge the gravity of the threat posed by extremist groups like Hamas only emboldens them further. It's a dangerous game of appeasement that history has shown leads to disastrous consequences.

 

Reagan's warning about the dangers of appeasement rings true today more than ever. By appeasing our enemies and failing to confront them directly, we risk sending a dangerous message: that terrorism works. This is a message that must be unequivocally rejected if we are to ensure the safety and security of our communities.

 

The reluctance to confront terrorism head-on is not just a failure of leadership; it's a betrayal of our values and principles. We cannot afford to capitulate to the demands of terrorists or allow them to dictate our foreign policy. It's time for Western nations to stand united against extremism and send a clear message: terrorism will not be tolerated, and those who perpetrate it will be held accountable.

 

As we reflect on the events of October 7 and the troubling trends that have emerged since, let us remember the importance of standing firm against terrorism in all its forms. Our resolve and determination to combat extremism must not waver, for the sake of our security, our values, and our future.

 

2024-05-11

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

That's a totally BS article.

Nobody (govt's) is supporting terrorists, nobody is supporting Islamic extremists.

But what happens is that Israel is starting a war against Gaza strip, not only against Hamas,  including innocent women and children. Israel is torturing them by stopping water, medical and any sort of humanitarian aid. This will murder many more Palestinians. 30.000 is not enough? Israel misuse the right to defend their state. And this causes the outrage. 

The Palestinians got an equal right to live in peace. There is no superior religion or state who got rights to order them how to live (in poverty!). 

In the last week's many state leaders are very concerned about the atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza. Even US is walking back a bit.🙏

Islam is now a major world problem which is grossly underestimated.

"We're in completely new territory here for a president of the United States because we’ve always had a rule, which is don’t negotiate with terrorists, but Joe Biden has gone beyond that — he's actually negotiating for the terrorists," Burgum said.

There is probably going to have to be another "spectacular", or a wave of them, to bring the West together. Given the prevarication provoked by 9/11, the London tube and bus bombs, the Manchester concert bombs and the Paris attacks then the casualties will have to be spectacular, and or the victims very high profile. Possibly attacks involving Chemical, Biological or even Nuclear weapons.

 

I hope to God not, but I fully expect it to happen in the next decade.

2 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Living and working in several Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, I became very much aware of the contempt they have for other religions. A reward in heaven for the killing of an infidel is a tenet deeply embedded in their faith. Very  worrying that so many liberal western democracies appear to have no conception of, or deny, the danger that is gradually encircling them. 

Why do you work or live in any Muslim country? We all know how unstable they are.

1 hour ago, NoshowJones said:

Why do you work or live in any Muslim country? We all know how unstable they are.

And if they are not a bit of ‘regime change’ can always be organized.

 

WMD anyone?

 

1 hour ago, NoshowJones said:

Why do you work or live in any Muslim country? We all know how unstable they are.

 

It's a religious thing.  That's where God put a lot of the oil, and where the companies mail those oversized paychecks.

 

 

6 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

A bitter pill to swallow but its pretty obvious we are rewarding terrorism and always have. That's why hostages are still be taken for terrorism purposes all over the world. Despite the old saying never negotiate with terrorists that's precisely what the world does.

despite the obvious fact they should be released immediately and with zero pre conditions.

 

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

"We're in completely new territory here for a president of the United States because we’ve always had a rule, which is don’t negotiate with terrorists, but Joe Biden has gone beyond that — he's actually negotiating for the terrorists," Burgum said.

It's clear you don't actually read what you write. Let me quote you:

" With this latest events of the hostages taken by Hamas, Israel has bent over backwards to meet the terrorist demands..."

I guess Israel disagrees with you. 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

It's clear you don't actually read what you write. Let me quote you:

" With this latest events of the hostages taken by Hamas, Israel has bent over backwards to meet the terrorist demands..."

I guess Israel disagrees with you. 

The second article quote is not from Israel. So why does Israel disagree with me?

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The second article quote is not from Israel. So why does Israel disagree with me?

II can't believe you don't see this. Hasn't Israel been negotiating with Hamas for the release of the hostages? Or maybe you don't believe that Hamas is a terrorist organization?

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

II can't believe you don't see this. Hasn't Israel been negotiating with Hamas for the release of the hostages? Or maybe you don't believe that Hamas is a terrorist organization?

Yes, Israel has been bending over backwards with concessions that what I said, so why would Israel not agree with me?

4 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Living and working in several Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, I became very much aware of the contempt they have for other religions. A reward in heaven for the killing of an infidel is a tenet deeply embedded in their faith.

 

This is why I don't stand with Palestine. They made their bed.

 

4 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Very  worrying that so many liberal western democracies appear to have no conception of, or deny, the danger that is gradually encircling them. 

 

It's baffling.

 

Westerners are even converting to Islam.

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes, Israel has been bending over backwards with concessions that what I said, so why would Israel not agree with me?

So, Israel and you both agree that negotiating with terrorists is acceptable.

Who wrote this: "A bitter pill to swallow but its pretty obvious we are rewarding terrorism and always have. That's why hostages are still be taken for terrorism purposes all over the world. Despite the old saying never negotiate with terrorists that's precisely what the world does." You don't think that old saying is valid?

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So, Israel and you both agree that negotiating with terrorists is acceptable.

Who wrote this: "A bitter pill to swallow but its pretty obvious we are rewarding terrorism and always have. That's why hostages are still be taken for terrorism purposes all over the world. Despite the old saying never negotiate with terrorists that's precisely what the world does." You don't think that old saying is valid?

Did you read  my post?

 

"A bitter pill to swallow but its pretty obvious we are rewarding terrorism and always have. That's why hostages are still be taken for terrorism purposes all over the world."

 

If I had children taken hostage I would also do anything I could to negotiate even though I know it rewards the terrorists.

 

Now again why so why would Israel not agree with me?

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Did you read  my post?

 

"A bitter pill to swallow but its pretty obvious we are rewarding terrorism and always have. That's why hostages are still be taken for terrorism purposes all over the world."

 

If I had children taken hostage I would also do anything I could to negotiate even though I know it rewards the terrorists.

 

Now again why so why would Israel not agree with me?

Well, because this editorial accuses Western government of wavering in the fight against terrorism but apparently, like you, gives Israel a pass for wavering.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Well, because this editorial accuses Western government of wavering in the fight against terrorism but apparently, like you, gives Israel a pass for wavering.

And? I gave my opinion on it. Its the same opinion that Israel has. The UN  Security Council Resolution didn't work and the ICJ order didn't work. What choice does Israel have? Hence a bitter pill to swallow. 

 

I am still waiting for this "why would Israel not agree with me?"

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

And? I gave my opinion on it. Its the same opinion that Israel has. The UN  Security Council Resolution didn't work and the ICJ order didn't work. What choice does Israel have? Hence a bitter pill to swallow. 

 

I am still waiting for this "why would Israel not agree with me?"

Well, Israel expresses regrets for killing Palestinian civilians, but says it's necessary to win the war. Yet, it's willing to subvert its war aims to recover the hostages. 

Just now, placeholder said:

Well, Israel expresses regrets for killing Palestinian civilians, but says it's necessary to win the war. Yet, it's willing to subvert its war aims to recover the hostages. 

That's got nothing to do with my post, pure deflection:

 

"why would Israel not agree with me?"

 

Blinken hopes Hamas takes Israel’s ‘extraordinarily generous’ truce offer

https://www.timesofisrael.com/blinken-hopes-hamas-takes-israels-extraordinarily-generous-truce-offer/

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

That's got nothing to do with my post, pure deflection:

 

"why would Israel not agree with me?"

 

Blinken hopes Hamas takes Israel’s ‘extraordinarily generous’ truce offer

https://www.timesofisrael.com/blinken-hopes-hamas-takes-israels-extraordinarily-generous-truce-offer/

Because if they actually subscribed to the position they use to justify the deaths of Palestinian civilians, then they wouldn't be negotiating for hostages.

Just now, placeholder said:

Because if they actually subscribed to the position they use to justify the deaths of Palestinian civilians, then they wouldn't be negotiating for hostages.

Can you provide a link to that claim?

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Can you provide a link to that claim?

. You haven't seen a myriad of statements coming from Israel about how it regrets killing civilians but that's war? You really need that? You've never read or heard anything from the Israeli government like that? It is to laugh. But if you foolishly insist on asking again, I'll be glad to provide you plenty of proof. What a ridiculous request.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

. You haven't seen a myriad of statements coming from Israel about how it regrets killing civilians but that's war? You really need that? You've never read or heard anything from the Israeli government like that? It is to laugh. But if you foolishly insist on asking again, I'll be glad to provide you plenty of proof. What a ridiculous request.

I would like a link to this claim:

 

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because if they actually subscribed to the position they use to justify the deaths of Palestinian civilians, then they wouldn't be negotiating for hostages.

 

I provided a link to how they are bending backwards in the negotiations. Which is exactly what I claimed. You also claimed Israel would disagree with me. How so?

 

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Blinken hopes Hamas takes Israel’s ‘extraordinarily generous’ truce offer

https://www.timesofisrael.com/blinken-hopes-hamas-takes-israels-extraordinarily-generous-truce-offer/

 

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I would like a link to this claim:

 

 

I provided a link to how they are bending backwards in the negotiations. Which is exactly what I claimed. You also claimed Israel would disagree with me. How so?

 

 

It's the same issue. Israel has a double standard. What don't you understand about that?

Israeli leader says he regrets "every" civilian death but blames Hamas

srael's prime minister has defended the actions of Israel's military in the recent war in the Gaza Strip, saying the heavy civilian casualties were caused by Hamas.

Speaking to international journalists, Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's intense bombardment of Gaza was a necessary response to Hamas attacks.

"It was justified. It was proportionate," he said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-leader-says-he-regrets-every-civilian-death-but-blames-hamas/

 

Palestinian civilian deaths inevitable to defeat Hamas. Hostage deaths not inevitable even though negotiating helps Hamas.

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's the same issue. Israel has a double standard. What don't you understand about that?

Israeli leader says he regrets "every" civilian death but blames Hamas

srael's prime minister has defended the actions of Israel's military in the recent war in the Gaza Strip, saying the heavy civilian casualties were caused by Hamas.

Speaking to international journalists, Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's intense bombardment of Gaza was a necessary response to Hamas attacks.

"It was justified. It was proportionate," he said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-leader-says-he-regrets-every-civilian-death-but-blames-hamas/

 

Palestinian civilian deaths inevitable to defeat Hamas. Hostage deaths not inevitable even though negotiating helps Hamas.

How does that refute this?

 

27 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Blinken hopes Hamas takes Israel’s ‘extraordinarily generous’ truce offer

https://www.timesofisrael.com/blinken-hopes-hamas-takes-israels-extraordinarily-generous-truce-offer/

How does that back up these claims:

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because if they actually subscribed to the position they use to justify the deaths of Palestinian civilians, then they wouldn't be negotiating for hostages.

Have you noticed all countries negotiate with terrorists to some degree despite the official policies or actions?

 

7 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

A bitter pill to swallow but its pretty obvious we are rewarding terrorism and always have. That's why hostages are still be taken for terrorism purposes all over the world.