ismail delal

because this doesn’t align with the UK’s agenda to further crackdown on pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist movements. they deliberately avoided mentioning the third victim of the recent stabbing (a Muslim) for the same reason.

Islamist is a racist term used to describe Muslims as ‘extremists’ inclined to violence and terrorism and was propagated by Islamophobic actors to smear any act of resistance and political action as ‘extreme’ and ‘terrorism’. It’s not a word that’s used by Muslims and is nowhere to be found in classical scripture. Jonathan you’re a great journalist and your work is valuable but you’re wrong on this one.

surprise surprise the genocidal apartheid state of Israel doesn’t support Palestinian sovereignty. a two-state solution was always a Zionist liberal psyop to offer a non-existent moderate ‘solution’ to where both sides win and no one gets hurt in an alternative cupcakes and rainbows world. but we all know the ONLY solution is a one state solution, and Israel has showed to the world that it is unable to be that state.

Israel and the United States rejected a joint proposal from Palestinian factions, including Hamas, that linked disarmament to Palestinian statehood and security guarantees in Gaza talks. A Palestinian source said the plan tied disarmament to political rights "within the national framework" and protections for civilians in Gaza, but mediators and the US rejected it and sent "threatening messages" to the delegation, according to a senior Palestinian source with knowledge of the talks who spoke to Middle East Eye.

You can call a Muslim an extremist but there is nothing in Islam that promotes extremism hence why Islamic extremism is an oxymoron. A Muslim can be at fault, though the religion is perfect — obviously this is an internal critique so Western ‘academia’ as Jonathan mentioned doesn’t make this distinction and instead knowingly or unknowingly insinuate extremism/terrorism is something that is innate to Islam when they used terms like Islamism or Islamist.

@ismailddelal @Jonathan_K_Cook So you believe that Christian extremist.. Or really that any kind of religious extremist in general is an oxymoron, right?

There is nothing unique or strange about Islam. Islam is a religion, whose adherents are called Muslims. Islamists, on the other hand, wish to pursue a political project, and use their Islamic identity as a way to legitmise efforts to advance that project. Muslims and Islamists are different things. If that distinction is not clear, think of a parallel case. Judaism is a religion, whose adherents are called Jews. Zionists, on the other hand, wish to pursue a political project, and use their Jewish identity as a way to legitimise efforts to advance that project. Jews and Zionists are different things. Notably, with the help of western colonial powers over the past century, one prominent group of Zionists had great success in realising their political project. In 1948 they established a self-declared “Jewish” state of Israel by violently expelling Palestinians from their homeland. Today, most Zionists identify at some level with the state of Israel. That is because doing so is advantageous, given that Israel is tightly integrated into “the West” and there are material and emotional benefits to be gained from identifying with it. The record of the Islamists has been far more mixed and variable. The Republic of Iran was founded by clerical Islamists in a 1979 revolution against the despotic rule of the western-back monarchy led by the Shah. Afghanisan is ruled by the Islamists of the Taliban, young radicals who emerged after prolonged super-power meddling by the Soviets and Americans left their country ravaged and in the grip of feudal warlords. Nato-member Turkey is led by an Islamist government. Each has a different, and conflicting, Islamist programme. This fact alone should highlight that there is no single, monolithic “Islamist” ideology. (More on that later.) Some groups of Islamists seek violent change, others want peaceful change, depending on how they view their political project. Not all Islamists are the head-chopping zealots of Islamic State. The same can be said of Zionists. Some seek violent change, others want peaceful change, depending on how they view their political project. Not all Zionists are the genocidal, child-killing soldiers sent by the state of Israel into Gaza. The same kind of distinction can be made between the religion of Hinduism and the political ideology of Hindutva. The current government of India – led by Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party – is fiercely ultra-nationalist and anti-Muslim. But there is nothing intrinsic to Hinduism that leads to Modi’s political project. Rather, Hindutvaism fits Modi’s political objectives. And we can see similar political tendencies over much of Christianity’s history, from the Crusades 1,000 years ago through the forced Christian conversions of the West’s colonial era to a modern Christian nationalism that prevails in Trump’s MAGA movement in the United States, and dominates major political movements in Brazil, Hungary, Poland, Italy and elsewhere. The main point is this: followers of political movements can – and often do – draw on the language of the religions they grew up with to rationalise their political programmes and invest them with a supposed divine legitimacy. Those programmes can be more or less violent, often depending on the circumstances such movements face. The West’s obsession with associating Islam, and not Juadism, with violence – even as a self-declared “Jewish state” commits genocide – tells us precisely nothing about those two religions. But it does tell us something about the political interests of the West. More on that below. This is an extract from my recent deep dive into the misconceptions about Islam and "the West". You can find a ink to the rest in the reply post ⬇️

Perhaps in western academia which no doubt has its bias, but Islamic extremism is an oxymoron and bad actors intentionally conflate the two to suggest there is something within the religion of Islam that validates extremism. Extremism is not Islamic so ‘Islamic extremism’ doesn’t make sense. And depending on the political project (Iran, MB etc.) it can be referred to as either ‘extreme/deviant’ political Islam project or not. Not all political projects rooted in Islamic values or claiming to be Islamic should be painted with the same brush because as you know, not all are valid in their claim.

This is a term used widely in academia to describe a phenomenon of political projects claiming to be rooted in Islamic law. There are others: political Islam, Islamic extremism. Take your pick. I don't really care. But you do need a word to describe this phenomenon. The Islamophobes would love us to just erase the distinction between Islam and Islamism because then Islamic extremism can be treated as inherent to Islam.

that’s what the state is for, to be a safety net so billionaires can continue to exploit.

@williamjohnbird they just needed an excuse, and were willing to sacrifice their own for it.

Mad fat guy stabs two other guys in the street. Doesn’t kill them. Foreign government tells our government we need to change our laws to prevent an anti-war demonstration. Our government agrees. This is nuts.

‘socialism’ in the West, also known as ‘democratic socialism’ is capitalism with a few socialist reforms here and there (free buses, healthcare etc.), but the foundations are and will always be capitalist. it’s the liberals’ left. nothing substantial changes, just tokenism.

man made social structures are only as good as the leaders who implement them. Yugoslavia under Tito had great living standards, yet communist Pol Pot in Cambodia had millions killed.

there’s a clear agenda that’s being pursued here, classic Israeli false flag tactics to achieve political goals; an instant UK gov. COBRA meeting for example. just like the 1954 Operation Susannah & the 1967 USS liberty attack.

these incidents should be treated as attacks targeting Zionists and not Jews. Golders Green is a Zionist stronghold and if these attacks were carried out by so-called IRGC-linked groups then we should assume it’s politically motivated.

@stevebrookstein I haven’t heard of a single incident where a non-Zionist Jew was attacked simply because they were a Jew. they are attacked, ostracised, and libelled but rather by Zionist Jews.

@ismailddelal What about the non-Zionist Jews doofus?

Jews supporting a genocidal ethno-supremacist state put themselves in danger by supporting it.

the liberal has perfected the art of deception, they pose as a friend and put emphasis on the ‘rules’ yet in reality they are moralless hypocrites.

what a state does to a people abroad, eventually will do to their own at home.

@Ssaniya_ it shows some people only have ‘sympathy’ when the act aligns with their agenda.

All crimes are horrible. But when certain incidents receive nonstop coverage, sympathy and condemnation while an entire genocide is treated like background noise, it reveals something deeply unsettling about global empathy.

met police’s Chief Communications and Engagement Officer, Sharon Sawers, is most likely behind @metpoliceuk ‘s replies that show the true colours of the UK police force. this shouldn’t be a surprise, be thankful that at least the veil is lifted, as they say.

if police in the UK had guns we’d be hearing the same horror stories that come out the US. give them orders to round up locals, send them off to slave camps, mass execute, ethnic cleanse, and they’d be no different to the Nazi’s ordnungspolizei (uniformed police). the only difference between these three is state policy.