In the UK, Politicians Live in Fear of Islamist Radicals

Chaos erupted in the British House of Commons on Wednesday after the speaker of the house, Lindsay Hoyle, violated time-honored procedural rules by allowing debate on a proposed amendment to a motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The details of the breach of protocol are not nearly so important as the reason Hoyle cited for caving into pressure, namely, that he is “very, very concerned about the safety” of his fellow MPs. This comes only a few weeks after another parliamentarian announced his retirement following threats to his life over his support for Israel. Stephen Pollard comments:

In other words, according to Sir Lindsay, his reason for selecting the Labor amendment was fear of the mob—that if Labor MPs weren’t given the opportunity to vote for their own ceasefire amendment, . . . he feared for their safety. And so he caved in to mob rule.

Dismayed as Pollard is, he’s unsurprised:

Every week . . . mobs of hundreds of thousands take to our streets with genocidal screams of “From the river to the sea,” chanting support of the Houthis, parading posters that could have come straight from Nazi Germany, and demanding jihad and global intifada. . . . And what do the authorities do? They stand and watch as these hate marches take over London—and other cities—and turn them into no-go areas for Jews. The marches—despite their repeated, clear, and proud intent—are given the go-ahead by a police force which has lost the will and the ability to keep the streets free from hate.

Why do the police appease rather than arrest the hate marchers? In part because they know the chances of the Crown Prosecution Service following through and charging anyone are close to zero.

Read more at Jewish Chronicle

More about: Anti-Semitism, Radical Islam, United Kingdom

Israel Just Sent Iran a Clear Message

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.

Read more at Jewish Chronicle

More about: Iran, Israeli Security