NY Post Op-Ed: The only people calling for a ceasefire never wanted a ceasefire
What they really wanted was Israel’s end
Last week, the New York Post published an opinion editorial written by Professor Jacobson and me detailing the hypocrisy of the ceasefire crowd. The coalition supporting Mamdani for mayor, along with Hollywood, the squad and the rest of Progressive Inc. aren’t really after a ceasefire, they never were.
If a ceasefire was really their goal, they’d be rejoicing in the streets when one was brokered by Trump. But that didn’t happen, did it?
Worse still, these people and orgs protect and advocate the proliferation of terrorist groups like Hamas.
From the op-ed:
The goal of the “ceasefire now” crowd was the surrender of Israel, followed by its destruction.
Fanning the flames of division here at home was just a fringe benefit, and one that was successfully perpetrated.
And it was fun to harass and assault Jews on the campuses and streets of the city.
Espouse virtue while hoping and scheming something much more sinister.
You would think it would be shameful for Mamdani and others to admit they didn’t really want an end to the fighting, they just wanted Israel to lose.
Apparently not.
Mamdani’s biggest backer, the Democratic Socialists of America, rejected this ceasefire as merely “conditional” and called for continued efforts to destroy Israel.
Mamdani himself could barely choke out a statement about the return of 20 emaciated hostages who’d been chained in Hamas dungeons for over two years.
As these young men hugged and wept with their families in moments of gratitude and relief, Zohran’s belated remarks were more about the fake “occupation and apartheid” and the non-existent “genocide.”
Pressed in an interview with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on Wednesday, Mamdami refused to say Hamas should lay down their weapons.
He also said it was “too early” to give Trump any credit for brokering the peace deal.
The Students for Justice in Palestine, which organized some of the massive campus protests, even cheered Hamas publicly executing some of their Gazan rivals, saying they were “collaborators.”
The “ceasefire” fraud has been exposed.
It was never about peace.
It was always about supporting terrorism.
Read the full article here.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They should all die a long terrible horrible death, The same death they wish on Jews. Yes I said it and I don’t feel any remorse for doing so. They are all terrible people, The worst of the worst and deserve only the worst to happen to them.
I wish there was something I could do to burn down and destroy anything and everything they love and hold dear besides boycotting and shunning them and voting every time against their interests.
Sometimes I feel the same, but I have to remind myself that vengeance is His realm and not ours.
That is why we don’t slay those whom contradict us.
No, we don’t. But what about those people who go beyond simply contradicting us and want us dead. Dead for no other reason that they consider us infidels and worthy only of death because we don’t profess their own religious beliefs. What do we do then. Do we go to our deaths like sheep to the slaughter or do we defend ourselves and the Faith from those that want us dead. What do we do, exactly in cases like this.
Tough one. Jesus says turn the other cheek and tells Peter to put away his sword. But are these not individuals who are in specific incidents dealing with one v. one person? If someone is physically attacking our family, our church, our country, that’s a different story. Eph. 6 alludes to this, as does some of the end-times prophecies where we Children of God battle evil.
“He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. ”
Luke 22:36
We don’t kill people simply for wanting us dead. We kill them when they act on their wishes, and are trying to make us dead, or are just about to.
I would suggest that, in the totality of circumstances, the “protest” actions by the BDS – JVP – SJP – IfNotNow – Within Our Lifetime – Columbia “student” agitators – Other Campus nitwits – and general collaborators a plenty nationwide at this point would not be outside the opinion of a reasonable person that they ARE TRYING to MAKE us dead.
Protests [sic economic terrorist activities] were held with the specific intent to cripple public use of infrastructure with the tacit consent of elected officials in Democrat strongholds (Cali, Chicago, NYC, WDC) in furtherance to disrupt commerce, trade, and public life and safety. More than once, significant delays were experienced due to the requirement of specialized tools to remove the individuals from their “anchor” (50 gal steel drums filled with concrete come to mind).
Had the protest planners / protesters actually been competent, and had they been more successful, It could have resulted in cascading failures of businesses, leading to financial cascading failures, leading to loss of liquidity for producers of food and goods domestically and importers from abroad.
The old guard that actually understood effective protest tactics and were willing to suffer for their cause are long dead or dying off (Civil Rights, Weather Underground). The current generation of improperly educated bowls of mush are not willing to even be inconvenienced, let alone give up blood, treasure and sacred liberty for their cause. But for those two facts, I argue that in this instance they ARE ALREADY trying to make us dead.
Let the jealous, petty god have vengeance.
For humanity, there is a greater cause.
Justice.
And that they suffer the horrors they would mete out to others is justice most true.
I’ll tell you about humanity.
“I would not have given such an order were I not a humanist”–Erich “Schieffbefehl” Mielke, late head of the East German Stasi on his “shoot to kill” order.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Che Guevara (who reveled in watching executions), Heinrich Himmler, Kang Sheng, and Lavrenti Beria were all part of humanity..
Justice? In the 20th century alone, scientific humanists in government killed over 160,000,000 people and jailed, exiled ,or otherwise ruined millions more in the names of progress, humanity, social justice, and recovery of national dignity. That’s more than so suffered for heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, etc. in the fifteen centuries between the conversion of Constantine and Ruggles v. New York.
And your justice demands that someone who feels wronged hold his peace, and the state’s use of violence.
We wise ones today scoff at the 19th century judge ho solemnly puts on his hood and says “May God have mercy on your soul” as he sentences a criminal to hang; but that reflects a far wiser stance, in which the judges and powers of this world recognize they must one day face God as the Supreme Judge of the living and dead.. It also recognizes a source of law far higher than the mere will of the human who holds power.
It is a hard thing for justice and peace to kiss each other (cf. Ps. 85). It’s why some of us keep faith in Jesus the Messiah, in whose saving work that kiss happened, even in these “enlightened” times.
Let me quibble, just a little, with part of your premise:
I THINK you meant to say this (and if I’ve misrepresented your intent, please correct me):
And your justice demands that someone who feels wronged hold his peace, and [accept] the state’s use of violence [to see justice done of making him whole for his injury].
That is the Social Contract of The Civil Society, as the price we pay for living with those around us in a Representative Republic (or, in few, very small-enough enclaves, direct democracy government). A sufficient majority either voted directly for, or elected representatives that then enacted, laws that said it is NOT good to have each person seek justice, including violence, on their own, but instead to sanction the State, via a “professional” force, to do violence in the interest of impartial Justice on behalf of the wronged member of the public body.
Secondly, it matters how you define “humanity.” To the members of the Totalitarian Military-Political Movement Masquerading as a Religion [called “Islam”], since you don’t worship Allah, and you’re not an adherent to tenets of Islam, you are “an infidel” and therefore do not qualify as human. Similar to the Totalitarians you reference above. Unlike those totalitarians in your list whom based their executions on immutable factors of ancestry, lineage, or genetics, the Islamist provides you a choice: from THEIR perspective, you have two methods to rectify your infidel status: Convert or die. Conversion resolves the infidel status [and theoretically strengthens their movement], and death means you go to face the judgment of Allah and are no longer the problem of the living to deal with.
Since generally the rest of the world is NOT steeped in the forcible convert-or-die mindset [cough, anymore], we treat the idea of “humanity much more broadly, recognizing Natural Rights. We may not all agree, but within reasonable tolerances we are not at each other’s throats [cough, yet, anyway]. Generally we have been of the mindset that if someone is insufficiently compatible with the general public morals, they’re not killed, but may be banished. The idea of “You can do what you want and live how you please. But NOT HERE. Go yonder over the next three or four valleys, and be close enough for commerce, but we’ll each do our own things and not interact socially.”
Destroying people who support evil ideologies and evil terrorists and other actors (and, who are thus evil, themselves), isn’t vengeance; it’s justice.
Reprobates in the Biblical sense
Strong words ztakddot.
Allow me to second them.
I’ll third that!
100%
Exactly correct.
The collective left reminds me of an old cigarette advert…they would rather fight than switch.
The operative outlook is that the groups calling for the ceasefire were more likely a 5th column to sow dissension. The more chaos the easier it is to insert communist interlopers like Mamdani. Same for the No Kings displays we saw this past weekend. The truth is clear. America is under attack by forces being funded by Soros and his merry band of leftist billionaires. Throw in the various foundations and you have a witches brew of money sowing discord. It’s way past time to get rid of these foundations and trusts. Any trust older than 50 years should be broken up and liquidated.
Exactly like the Nuclear Disarmament movement of the ’60s-’80s. It wasn’t against nuclear weapons, it was against us having them. We now know it was literally financed and organized by the USSR.
Sorry, it’s not your money. That is their money, and they’re entitled to put it to whatever use they please. They built that. Confiscating it is by definition socialist, and if you decide to join them then why are you still fighting them?
I believe MoeHowardwasright was referring to the financing arms of leftists. In which case, RICO prosecutions would be the vehicle for freezing their assets and eventually seizing them. That isn’t socialistic, it’s a tool to fight criminal organizations that whose use against the financiers of leftist blackshirt mobs is long overdue.
The proposal was broken up and liquidated, which may not be the same thing as confiscated.
One policy to achieve that objective would be once trusts or foundations hit a certain age, say age 40, they have ten years to spend down all of their funds on their charitable purpose (and not just give funds to another trust or foundation).
We HAVE rules about how long a trust can exist. It’s called the “Rule Against Perpetuities” (aka “The Dead Hand” rule). With minor state-to-state variations on the theme, a Trust may exist for the length of a (or several) specified “life-in-being” at the time that the Trust is founded, and may exist until the death of the last “life in being” specified that WAS alive when the trust was founded, PLUS 21 years.
Bad circumstances make for bad law. Just because it is not as short as you would like it to be, does not mean it is inherently bad in and of itself. Don’t destroy a stable system just because you don’t like how SOME people are using it.
There are A LOT of reasons that this was settled on, not the least of which is that a Trust can be created for an individual to protect the wealth from being squandered by one flamboyant peacock or can care for a disabled child through their old age without having to be tweaked, only the Trustee replaced every few decades, and still provide for that person’s DESCENDANTS or HEIRS through THEIR childhood until THEY become adults (and hopefully have the brains and the advice to be able to handle the wealth without squandering it….
There is SO MUCH Estate and Wealth planning tied up in this system that you will likely NEVER be able to modify it. There are TOO many interests that you would have to disturb.
The total defeat of HAMAS and their supporters is the only logical conclusion. Like the defeat of the NAZI and Japanese military complexes 80 years ago. Allowing a HAMAS core to remain will only result in the future resurrection of HAMAS. HAMAS must be obliterated no matter the cost and the people of Gaza should be made aware of the fact and what it might mean to them.