The issue of "European elites supporting Islamic Jihadists against Israel, Christians and western values" is a complex and highly charged topic.

The available information does directly show European elites supporting "Islamic Jihadists." 

However, it does highlight a significant and growing divide within Europe regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader issue of Islamism.

Here's a breakdown of the key points from the search results:

1. Public Opinion and Government Actions:

• Growing Criticism of Israel: Public opinion in many European countries has shifted, with support for Israel reaching record lows. This is largely due to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Polls show that a significant portion of the population in countries like Italy, Belgium, France, Sweden, and Germany support measures such as banning arms trade with Israel and prosecuting Israeli officials for war crimes.

• Political Divisions: This shift in public opinion is creating political tension. Some European leaders and governments have taken more critical stances toward Israel, while others maintain a more traditional pro-Israel position. For example, some countries have recognized a Palestinian state, and there are proposals to suspend trade agreements and impose sanctions on Israeli ministers. However, a consensus on these measures is often difficult to achieve.

• Pro-Palestinian Protests: Large-scale pro-Palestinian protests have been a regular occurrence across Europe. These demonstrations have sometimes been met with a strong police response, including mass arrests and the use of force, particularly in the UK and Spain. The UK government has even designated a pro-Palestinian activist group as a "terrorist organization," leading to the arrest of hundreds of protesters.

2. The Role of Islamist Groups and Ideologies:

• Non-violent Islamism: Some reports suggest that European institutions and governments have at times engaged with or funded organizations with links to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which, while not directly supporting violent jihadist groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, are seen by some as undermining Western liberal democratic values.

• "Jihadist" Threat: The search results also mention the increasing number of Western-born Muslims traveling to Syria to join radical groups. This highlights a concern about the radicalization of individuals within Europe, though this is distinct from "elites" supporting such groups.

3. "Anti-Western Values" Argument:

• The idea that some pro-Palestinian sentiment or support for certain Islamist groups goes against "Western values" is a central theme in some of the provided sources. This is often framed as a conflict between liberal democracy and an ideology based on Islamic law (Sharia).

• The argument is that by providing platforms or funding to certain organizations, European leaders are unintentionally empowering groups whose long-term goals are incompatible with core European values like freedom of speech and legal equality.

In summary, the information suggests that while there is no direct evidence of European elites "supporting Islamic Jihadists," there is a clear and deepening rift in Europe over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is manifesting in a few ways: a growing public and political alignment with the Palestinian cause, a sometimes-repressive response to pro-Palestinian protests, and an ongoing debate about the role of certain Islamist organizations in European society.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When and why did the European elites give up on truth, democracy and Western values? 

The question of "when and why" European elites began to challenge "truth, democracy, and Western values" is a matter of intense debate and a core theme of contemporary political discourse. There isn't a single event or date, but rather a confluence of intellectual, political, and social developments that have led to a significant shift.

Here are some of the key periods and ideas that are often cited in this discussion:

1. The Post-World War II Era and the Rise of Postmodernism

• When: The mid-to-late 20th century, particularly from the 1960s onward.

• Why: Postmodernism emerged as a reaction against the intellectual assumptions of the modern period, especially the Enlightenment. The horrors of the 20th century, including the World Wars, the Holocaust, and the rise of totalitarianism, led many intellectuals to question the core tenets of Western progress, reason, and objective truth.

  • Challenge to Truth: Postmodern thinkers argued that there is no single, objective reality or universal truth. Instead, "truth" is seen as a social construct, influenced by language, power structures, and the interests of dominant groups. This intellectual movement gained significant traction in European universities and has since influenced broader cultural and political discussions.

  • Challenge to Western Values: Postmodernism and related theories like post-structuralism began to deconstruct the idea of a universal "Western civilization." They argued that concepts like liberal democracy, human rights, and the scientific method, while presented as universal, were in fact products of a specific historical context and served to legitimize colonial and imperial power.

2. The Influence of Decolonization

• When: The mid-20th century, as former European colonies gained independence.

• Why: The process of decolonization had a profound impact on European intellectual thought. It forced a critical re-evaluation of Europe's colonial history and its legacy.

  • Challenge to Western Values: This period led to the rise of post-colonial theory, which critiqued the perceived hegemony of Western knowledge systems. The argument was that the West's prosperity was built on the exploitation of other cultures, and its values were used to justify this dominance. This created a sense of historical guilt and a questioning of the moral foundation of Western societies.

3. The Populist Revolts of the 21st Century

• When: The 2010s, with events like the Brexit vote in the UK and the rise of populist parties across Europe.

• Why: The populist surge is often seen as a public "revolt" against what many perceive as a detached and out-of-touch elite.

  • Challenge to Democracy: Many populist movements argue that mainstream "elites" have abandoned the will of the people in favor of supranational institutions (like the EU) and a "cultural liberalism" that is at odds with traditional values, customs, and religion.

  • Challenge to Truth: Populist leaders and movements often employ rhetoric that questions established facts and institutions (e.g., "fake news"). This is seen by some as a direct consequence of the postmodernist critique of objective truth.

Key Criticisms of Liberalism and "Western Values"

The search results highlight some of the key arguments against the status quo:

• Erosion of Sovereignty: Nationalists argue that international institutions and laws promoted by a liberal elite erode national sovereignty and legitimate national interests.

• Decline of Moral Communities: Cultural traditionalists claim that the emphasis on radical individualism and secularism erodes traditional moral and religious communities, leading to what they see as nihilism.

• Economic Inequality: Some critiques, like those of Hermann Heller, argue that liberalism is complicit in economic inequality and that liberal democracy fails to provide "real" freedom and equality for its citizens.

In conclusion, the shift in European elite thought is not a sudden change but a gradual process. It can be traced back to the intellectual reactions against the traumas of the 20th century, the moral reckoning with colonialism, and a growing disconnect between mainstream political institutions and a significant portion of the European populace. These factors have all contributed to a widespread critique of traditional "Western values," objective truth, and the functioning of liberal democracy itself.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When and why did the European elites choose to reward terrorists, butchers, kidnappers and barbarians?

European elites have chosen to reward "terrorists, butchers, kidnappers, and barbarians" is a central component of several conspiracy theories, most notably the "Great Replacement" theory. This viewpoint posits that European leaders are intentionally facilitating the demographic and cultural replacement of native European populations through mass migration from non-European, especially Muslim-majority, countries. This is not supported by mainstream political analysis or evidence. Instead, the available information shows that European governments are actively engaged in combating terrorism.

No Evidence of Intentional Reward

• Counter-Terrorism Efforts: European Union member states have established strict laws and policies to combat terrorism. The EU Directive (EU) 2017/541 defines and criminalizes terrorist offenses, and countries have special police units to respond to terrorist attacks.

• Government Actions: The search results indicate that European countries have taken strong measures against terrorism. For example, some have prosecuted individuals for links to terrorist groups, and there are efforts to counter radicalization within their borders.

The "Great Replacement" Theory

The claim that European elites are rewarding these groups stems from the "Great Replacement" theory, a debunked conspiracy theory popularized by French author Renaud Camus.

• Core Belief: This theory argues that "liberal elites" in governments and international organizations like the EU and UN are deliberately engineering a "genocide by substitution" by encouraging mass migration.

• Purpose: The supposed motive is to create a "replaceable human" without national, ethnic, or cultural specificity, thereby destroying traditional European identity.

• Historical Roots: The theory has roots in older, pre-World War II antisemitic conspiracy theories, with the target of the conspiracy shifted from Jewish people to Muslim immigrants.

• Exacerbated Tensions: The rise of this theory was fueled by a number of factors, including the escalation of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe during the 2000s and 2010s and the migrant crisis of 2015-2016. These events created public fear and distrust, making the public more receptive to such a theory.

In summary, there's no evidence that European elites are intentionally rewarding terrorists. The claim is a key part of a widely-debunked conspiracy theory that has gained traction by exploiting public fear and concern over migration and terrorism in Europe.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why is Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands turning their back not just on Israel, a democracy on the front line against Islamism, Jihadists and Islamic terrorists but also, increasingly, against its Christians and Jewish citizens?

In Britain and Europe you can't openly preach the gospel of Jesus while allowing Islamic extremists parade on many occasions on the streets.

The shift in some European countries' positions on Israel is not a simple rejection of an ally, but a complex response to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly the humanitarian situation in Gaza. It's an issue with deep political, social, and historical roots that has created a significant divide within Europe.

Shifting Stance on Israel

The relationship between European nations and Israel is becoming increasingly strained due to several key factors.

• Humanitarian Concerns in Gaza: The primary reason for the growing criticism is the massive scale of destruction and loss of life in Gaza. Many European leaders and citizens view Israel's military response as "disproportionate." Public opinion has shifted, with many now advocating for measures like banning arms sales to Israel and prosecuting Israeli officials for war crimes.

• Political Disagreements: There's a fundamental divide over the "two-state solution." Countries like Ireland, Spain, and Belgium have recognized a Palestinian state, while others like Germany maintain a more steadfastly pro-Israel stance. This has led to internal EU disputes over policy towards Israel, including proposals for sanctions and trade suspensions.

• Historical and Colonial Context: Some European nations, especially those with a history of colonialism, view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a lens of post-colonialism, where Israel is seen as a powerful state occupying the land of a marginalized people. This perspective often aligns with the Palestinian narrative.

Treatment of Jewish and Christian Citizens

The idea that European elites are turning against their Christian and Jewish citizens is a complex one. While some public rhetoric and actions may be perceived this way, official policies and laws generally aim to protect religious freedom.

• Antisemitism: The rise in antisemitic incidents in Europe, particularly since the start of the conflict in Gaza, is a serious concern. The European Union has a formal strategy to combat antisemitism and foster Jewish life, and many governments have increased security for Jewish institutions. However, many Jewish people feel that this rise in hate speech and violence is directly tied to the anti-Israel sentiment that's being expressed in Europe, creating an environment where they feel unsafe.

• Christianity: Christianity is still deeply embedded in the culture of many European nations, and there isn't a widespread movement to suppress it. However, Europe has a long history of secularism, particularly in countries like France, where there's a strong legal separation of church and state. Religious expression, whether Christian or otherwise, is often relegated to private spaces or designated places of worship. This is based on the principle of individual freedom and a desire to avoid the religious conflicts that have historically plagued the continent.

Freedom of Speech and Religion

It's generally not illegal to preach the gospel in Europe, but freedom of expression is not absolute. Many European countries have laws against "hate speech" and incitement to violence.

• Legal Framework: The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. It allows individuals to manifest their religion in public or private, in worship, teaching, practice, and observance.

• Public Order Limitations: However, this right is often limited by law to protect public safety, public order, and the rights and freedoms of others. This is why some public religious displays or protests may be restricted or even banned if they are deemed to incite hatred or pose a security risk.

• Pro-Palestinian Protests: The pro-Palestinian demonstrations you mentioned are not just about the conflict in Gaza; they are also an expression of the growing political divisions within Europe. While some protests have included extremist elements, they are broadly seen as a legitimate form of dissent and a reflection of popular anger at the humanitarian crisis. The fact that these are often permitted while some forms of religious preaching in public might be restricted is not necessarily a sign of favoring Islamism, but rather a reflection of the legal distinction between political protest and proselytizing, and the perceived potential for public disturbance.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Double standard in action. why doesn’t Starmer not put maximum pressure on Hamas to release its hostages and quit Gaza, and make the case for a multinational, Arab-backed temporary government to rebuild it, rather than promising to unconditionally recognize a virtual Palestinian state that would still be committed to Israel’s obliteration?

Keir Starmer is unconditionally recognizing a Palestinian state and not pressuring Hamas, is supported by the available information. His stated position and recent actions reflect a more conditional approach to the conflict.

Here's a breakdown of Starmer's actual stance:

Conditional Recognition of a Palestinian State

Starmer has stated that the UK will recognize a Palestinian state, but this is not an unconditional move. It is a strategic effort to put pressure on Israel and move towards a long-term political solution.

• Explicit Conditions: He has made it clear that recognition will only happen unless Israel takes "substantive steps" to address the "appalling situation in Gaza." This includes a ceasefire, a commitment to a long-term peace process, allowing more humanitarian aid into Gaza, and ending settlement expansion in the West Bank.

• A "Two-State Solution" Framework: Starmer's policy is explicitly linked to the two-state solution, which involves a secure Israel existing alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. His government has stated that this is the "only way to bring about enduring peace and stability for both Palestinians and Israelis."

Pressure on Hamas and Rejection of their Role

The idea that Starmer is rewarding Hamas is contradicted by his public statements and actions.

• Demand for Hostage Release: Starmer has repeatedly called for the "release of all hostages cruelly detained by Hamas." This is a central condition of his policy and a point of discussion in his diplomatic meetings.

• No Role for Hamas: Both Starmer and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have agreed that there is "absolutely no role for Hamas in the future governance of Palestine." Starmer's government has also stated that Hamas "must commit to disarmament."

• Condemnation of Hamas: Starmer's office has condemned Hamas as "brutal terrorists" and emphasized that they are responsible for the "deadliest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust" on October 7, 2023.

Support for a Post-Conflict Gaza Government

The idea of a multinational, Arab-backed temporary government to rebuild Gaza is a concept that is gaining traction, and Starmer's government seems to be aligned with this.

• Calls for a Reconstituted Authority: Starmer's government has been working with international partners on a framework for peace that addresses governance, security, and reconstruction in Gaza. This includes the need for a "reconstituted Palestinian Authority" that can govern both the West Bank and Gaza.

• Arab and International Plans: The search results mention proposals from countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for an interim government and an international peacekeeping mission. While not a UK-specific plan, it's a widely discussed idea, and Starmer's emphasis on a reformed Palestinian Authority suggests he is open to a similar arrangement that excludes Hamas.

In conclusion, Starmer's position is not a "double standard." He is actively pursuing a policy that attempts to balance support for a Palestinian state with the security of Israel. His approach is conditional and explicitly rejects the future governance of Gaza by Hamas. The purpose of his policy is to use the UK's diplomatic leverage to push for a sustainable peace that ends the humanitarian crisis, secures the release of hostages, and ultimately leads to a two-state solution.