Connect with us

International

Globalizing intifada is the same as globalizing jihad: Hussain Ehsani

Published

7 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Hussain Ehsani

Canadian authorities must realize that calls for “intifada” constitute hate and even potentially an incitement to violence

When ISIS conducted its terrorist attacks on Mosul, Iraq in June 2014, several Mosul residents celebrated it as a victory for the terror group and welcomed them to the city. In March 2019, ISIS was defeated in a fight with Kurdish special units Peshmerga, Iraqi Forces, and the international coalition, and this time, five years later, Mosul celebrated the defeat of ISIS. Mosul had learned its lesson under ISIS’ reign of terror. Likewise, the fantasy of celebrating Islamic Jihadist and terrorist groups as liberators has disappeared, for the most part, across the Middle East.

However, the same cannot be said about the veneration of terror in the West. Less than 24 hours after the brutal October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas on civilians and the Jewish state, Canada witnessed horrific and unimaginable scenes. People across the country paraded with Palestinian flags, chanting “Allah Akbar,” “Free Palestine,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “Long live Intifada” — celebrating the Hamas attack that resulted in the murder of 1,200 Israelis. The scenes reminded me of Mosul’s celebration of ISIS’ victory in 2014, but this time they took place in in Mississauga, Ontario.

As Israel began its counter-terror operation the mobs became more aggressive – organizing rallies across the country, blocking intersectionsthreatening Jewish Businesses, attacking synagogues with guns and Molotov cocktails, and issuing bomb threat against the largest Jewish high school in Canada.

Although Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) are listed as terrorist organizations by the Government of Canada, these groups are being praised by the pro-Jihadi mobs. They have flown the flag Hamas and the PFLP, they have worn green headbands representing Hamas, and yellow armbands of PIJ. Some in Toronto even raised the flag of the Taliban. Others have worn jackets with the symbols of Jihad, martyrs, and Al Qaeda symbols during protests. All while they scream “Intifada, intifada, long live the intifada,” “Globalize the intifada,” and “There is only one solution, intifada, revolution” – unmistakable calls for violence against Jews that refer to the bloody Palestinian terror campaigns of the late 80s and early 2000s.

Despite the clear connection between the terror groups and this violent call, law enforcement across the country have been reluctant to act and make arrests on those shouting “Intifada.” This refusal encourages the pro Hamas mobs to continue their antisemitic rallies and disguises calling for violence as a progressive solution for the Palestinian cause.

There is no doubt that calling for intifada is calling for violence. This is most clearly demonstrated by the Second Palestinian Intifada which consisted of suicide bombings, shootings, stabbings, and other terror tactics. These tactics have been used by other major Islamic Jihadist groups such as the Taliban, ISIS, and Al Qaeda. In April 1993, during the first Intifada, Hamas suicide bomber Saher Tamam Al Nablusi detonated the switch under the seats in his car and blew himself up on the West Bank. Based on the result of this attack, Hamas and its allies kicked off massive campaign of suicide attacks up against Israel. According to the statistics of Israeli institutions and studies, during two phases of Intifada, Hamas, PIJ, and PFLP conducted more than 130 suicide attacks. In the aftermath of the Intifada, the tactic of car bombs was vastly used by the Haqqani network in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

And Intifada is not restricted to terror attacks but includes a clear strategy undergirded by religious ideology. For example, the book “Palestinian Resistance against Israel in Jerusalem” lays out the rhetoric and chants that Palestinians shouted in protests during the first Intifada, including:  “Khaybar Khaybar O Jewish! The Mohammad Army will come back.” This chant refers to the Battle of Khaybar in which Muslims fought against the Jews in the first era of Islam in the Khaybar district of Medina in Hejaz in early 628 CE, which led to the victory of Muslims. “Mohammad Army” in this context is a metaphor for all Muslims around the world, and the chant is calling all Muslims to assemble another Khyabar, which strives to provoke and unite all Muslims against Jews. Another example “Praise the God O Muslim – explode the head of Zionist.” This chant was yelled in Toronto, Ontario. This has no other meaning except Jihad and the militarization of Muslims around the world to eliminate Jews and Israelis.

Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and their allies are utilizing Jihadi tactics to pursue their objectives here in Canada. Calling for “Intifada” in the streets, malls, subway stations, and university campuses in Canada is a direct call for Jihadism and its principles to be enacted in the West. This is why the globalization of Intifada means globalizing the Jihad. It means globalizing violence against Jews.

Canadian authorities should realize that calls for “intifada” constitute hate and even potentially an incitement to violence. If they fail to, it will not be long until we see ISIS flags and chants for reviving the Caliphate. They are one and the same and we cannot allow this hate to fester unaddressed.

Hussain Ehsani is a Middle East affairs expert focused on the Abraham Accords and Canadian foreign policy.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Health

RFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Robert Jones

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has dismissed every member of the CDC’s top vaccine advisory panel, citing what he described as a “decades” of “conflicts of interest” and “skewed science” in the vaccine regulatory system.

RFK Jr.’s abrupt decision to “retire” all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was announced in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Monday and confirmed by HHS shortly thereafter.

The move marks the most sweeping reform to federal vaccine policy in years and follows months of internal reviews and mounting public skepticism.

Kennedy accused the ACIP of being “little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine,” claiming “it has never recommended against a vaccine.”

“The public must know that unbiased science guides the recommendations from our health agencies,” Kennedy wrote. “This will ensure the American people receive the safest vaccines possible.”

ACIP holds the power to influence which vaccines are recommended by the CDC and covered by insurers. But according to Kennedy, it has failed in its duty to protect the public.

He cited multiple government investigations—dating back to 2000 and 2009—finding that ACIP members were routinely advising on products from pharmaceutical firms with which they had financial ties. Committee members were also issued conflict-of-interest waivers from the CDC.

Kennedy pointed to the 1997 vote approving the Rotashield vaccine – later withdrawn for causing severe bowel obstructions in infants – as a case study in regulatory failure. Four of the eight members who voted for it had financial stakes in rotavirus vaccines under development.

He explained “retiring” the 17 members, “some of whom were last-minute appointees of the Biden administration,” by saying that without such a move, “the Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority” until 2028.

Under Kennedy’s leadership, HHS has already halted recommendations for routine COVID-19 shots for healthy children and pregnant women and cancelled COVID-era programs to fast-track new vaccines.

It remains unclear who will replace the outgoing ACIP members, though HHS confirmed the committee will still meet later this month, now under new leadership.

“The new members won’t directly work for the vaccine industry,” he promised. “They will exercise independent judgment, refuse to serve as a rubber stamp, and foster a culture of critical inquiry—unafraid to ask hard questions.”

Continue Reading

Health

Police are charging parents with felonies for not placing infants who died in sleep on their backs

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Dr. Brenda Baletti, The Defender

Pennsylvania authorities brought felony charges against the parents of two different babies after police said the infants died because the parents placed them in unsafe sleeping positions.

Parents of two different babies are being charged with felonies in Pennsylvania after police say their babies died because the parents placed them in unsafe sleeping positions, SpotlightPA reported.

In both cases, police allege that the parents failed to follow guidance, including handouts given to them at doctor’s visits, stating that babies should be put to sleep on their backs.

Gina and David Strause of Lebanon County are accused of putting their 3-month-old infant son, Gavin, to sleep on his stomach and allowing him to sleep with stuffed animals in the crib.

They are charged with involuntary manslaughter, recklessly endangering another person, and endangering the welfare of children.

Natalee Rasmus of Luzerne County is accused of putting her 1-month-old daughter, Avaya Jade Rasmus-Alberto, to sleep on her stomach on a boppy pillow, often used for nursing. She is charged with third-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and endangering the welfare of children.

Rasmus was a 17-year-old mother when her daughter died in 2022. Court records show that she continues to be held at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility with bail set at $25,000 pending resolution of her case.

In both cases, autopsies concluded the babies died of accidental death from asphyxiation. Law enforcement argued in both cases that parents should have known that putting the babies to sleep on their stomachs was unsafe, because they had received paperwork at wellness visits informing them of safe sleeping practices.

The law requires hospitals, birthing centers, and medical providers to give parents educational materials from the national Safe to Sleep campaign, and ask them to certify that they received them.

Signing the statement is voluntary. The statement doesn’t indicate that parents can be charged with a criminal offense if they don’t follow the campaign advice.

Advocates from national organizations that educate parents about safe sleep practices found the charges shocking. Nancy Maruyama, the executive director of Sudden Infant Death Services of Illinois, told Spotlight PA, “To charge them criminally is a crime, because they have already suffered the worst loss.”

Alison Jacobson, executive director of First Candle, a non-profit that also educates parents about safe sleep practices, told Pennlive, “There is no law against placing a baby on his or her stomach to sleep. How they can charge this family with involuntary manslaughter is completely baffling to me.”

Researcher Neil Z. Miller, an expert on SIDS and the Safe to Sleep campaign, told The Defender, “Parents of a sleeping baby who dies in the middle of the night should never be charged with murder. That’s just cruel.”

Miller, author of “Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?” added:

Should parents be obligated to follow every “recommendation” made by their doctor or the Safe to Sleep campaign? Would we as a society prefer that doctors raise our babies instead of the parents? Have other possible causes of death been considered, such as vaccinations? As a society, we can, and must, do much better.

Does placing infants on their backs make a difference? 

The handouts shared with new Pennsylvania parents are based on the National Institutes of Health “Safe to Sleep” campaign, which institutionalized a program initiated by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 1992 to inform parents to put children to sleep on their backs rather than on their stomachs.

The campaign is based on the premise that babies who sleep on their backs or sides are less likely to die in their sleep. Until that time, it was common for babies to sleep on their stomachs.

The program was launched in the wake of a rising number of SIDS deaths – and growing concern among some parents that the deaths were linked to vaccination.

In a 2021 article in the peer-reviewed journal Toxicology Reports, vaccine researcher Neil Z. Miller provides a history of the SIDS diagnosis, noting that the rise of SIDS coincided with the first mass immunization campaigns.

Between 1992, when the Safe to Sleep program launched, and 2001, SIDS deaths reportedly declined a whopping 55 percent – a number touted in articles celebrating the program, making it appear that babies sleeping on their stomachs was the cause of SIDS, not vaccines.

However, at the same time deaths from SIDS decreased, the rate of mortality from “suffocation in bed,” “suffocation other,” “unknown and unspecified causes,” and “intent unknown” all increased significantly.

Why? The classification system had changed. SIDS deaths were being reclassified by medical certifiers, usually coroners, as one of the other similar categories, not SIDS.

Research published in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP’s flagship journal, concluded that deaths previously certified as SIDS were simply being certified as other non-SIDS causes, such as suffocation – but the deaths were still essentially SIDS deaths.

That change in classification accounted for more than 90 percent of the drop in SIDS rates.

The Pediatrics paper showed no decline in overall postneonatal mortality after the Safe to Sleep campaign was launched, despite the program’s – and the AAP’s – claims to the contrary.

Others verified the Pediatrics paper’s findings, and the trend continued, as reported by multiple studies in top journals. Miller reported that, for example, “From 1999 through 2015, the U.S. SIDS rate declined 35.8% while infant deaths due to accidental suffocation increased 183.8%.”

Research shows that almost 80 percent of SIDS deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) happen within seven days of vaccination.

Theories linking vaccines to SIDS suggest that, in some cases, underdeveloped liver enzyme pathways may make it harder for some infants to process toxic ingredients in vaccines. Others argue that other, multiple, complex factors can make some infants vulnerable to toxic ingredients in vaccines.

Baby Gavin was ‘a dream come true’

On April 30, Gina and David Strause were charged with involuntary manslaughter, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years, and other lesser charges in the death of their son, Gavin.

According to the police report, Gina found her son unresponsive, cold, and blue in his crib when she woke up to feed him on the morning of May 8, 2024. She immediately called 911 and performed CPR until the police arrived.

The baby was pronounced dead at the hospital. The autopsy report found the cause of death to be “complications of asphyxia.”

Police said they observed loose items in the crib, “such as blankets and stuffed animals.”

Gina said that after feeding her baby at about 11:30 p.m. the night before he died, she placed him in his crib on his belly, because he was a “belly sleeper,” and covered him with a blanket. She said that she had received the recommendation that he should sleep on his back, but that he preferred to sleep on his stomach.

In an interview with Pennlive, Gina said that she typically put Gavin to sleep on his back, but he had gotten into the daily habit of rolling onto his belly.

Davis Stause told police that when he left for work at 5:30 a.m., he checked on Gavin, who was sleeping on his stomach and moving around a little bit. David said he “patted his butt” to put him back to sleep.

The police reported that they also obtained medical records from birth through death that showed that on the discharge paperwork that the parents received information about safe sleep practices, which included putting the baby on its back, having it sleep in the same room as the parents, and keeping the crib clear of bumper pads and stuffed animals.

They said this paperwork explained how parents could create a safe sleeping environment for their babies to reduce the risk of SIDS.

Baby Gavin also went to the pediatrician for well-child visits on February 7 and 14, March 5, and April 9, a month before he died.

Gina told Pennlive that Gavin, who was born when she was almost 40, was “a dream come true.” She had taken 10 weeks of maternity leave and largely worked at home to spend as much time with him as possible. She said that after she gave birth, she was “overwhelmed” and didn’t remember receiving any paperwork or instructions about sleep.

Gina also said that at the hospital, police treated her and her husband with immediate suspicion, separating and questioning them. They were not allowed to see their baby again before he was taken by the coroner’s office.

The parents created a GoFundMe page, where they shared a copy of the police report, to help cover their legal costs, because they said they do not qualify for a public defender.

The Defender attempted to contact the parents to inquire about the baby’s overall health, if he had any medical conditions, was born prematurely, or had recently received any vaccines, but the parents did not respond by deadline.

The district attorney’s office also did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Tragic accident with no criminal intent to harm or kill the baby’

The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy for Natalee Rasmus’ baby listed the cause of death as accidental. According to the report, the baby died from asphyxiation, the Times Leader reported.

Rasmus discovered her baby had died on the morning of October 23, 2022, when she picked her up to get her ready for a doctor’s appointment.

Pennsylvania State Police in December charged Rasmus, alleging that she placed her baby face down to sleep against the recommendations of medical personnel and prenatal classes at Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center.

At a preliminary hearing on the case in February, a state trooper testified that Rasmus ignored safe sleeping practices because she had placed her baby face down in her bassinet with a Boppy pillow, which has a tag warning, “Do not use for sleeping.”

The trooper, Caroline Rayeski, also testified that a search of Rasmus’ cell phone found that she had searched the internet to see whether it was ok to allow newborns to sleep on their stomachs. The trooper also seized literature from the prenatal classes stating it is “recommended” to put newborns to sleep on their backs.

“Yeah, she wouldn’t sleep, she’ll just scream, so she has to be like propped up,” Rasmus told the investigating officer, according to Spotlight PA, which reported the story.

Assistant attorneys argued in a preliminary hearing that she disregarded safe sleeping practices, and a judge forwarded the criminal case to county court.

Rasmus is being represented by public defenders Joseph Yeager and Melissa Ann Sulima, who told the Times Leader the baby’s death was “a tragic accident with no criminal intent to harm or kill the baby.”

Yeager said the prenatal literature referring to newborn sleep positions are “recommendations,” not mandates.

“As the death certificate says, it was an accident. Clearly, there was no malice in this accidental death,” said Yeager, who also said the case should be dismissed.

Rasmus’ most serious charge, third-degree murder, is a homicide that involves killing someone without intent to kill, but with reckless disregard for human life. In Pennsylvania, it can carry a prison sentence of up to 40 years.

Court documents indicate that Rasmus remains in jail with a $25,000 bail, pending the outcome of her case. Neither the district attorney nor Rasmus’ attorneys responded to The Defender’s request for comment.

How common is it to bring criminal charges against parents in infant deaths?

Attorney Daniel Nevins told SpotlightPA it is extremely rare for parents to be criminally charged when infants die after sleeping on their stomachs, and that the burden of proof on the prosecutors will be high.

In 2014, Virginia resident Candice Christa Semidey, age 25, was charged with murder after she swaddled her baby and put it to sleep on its stomach, the Washington Post reported. In that case, police similarly did not think that she intended for the baby to die.

She pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and child neglect. She was ordered to serve three years of probation to avoid the five-year prison term she was sentenced to.

Some charges have also been brought against parents in deaths of infants sleeping with Boppy pillows. There have also been several cases of parents charged for sleeping in the same bed as their child.

The Defender recently reported on three SIDS deaths that occurred shortly after vaccination. Police are still investigating the parents of 18-month-old twins who died together a week after receiving three vaccines. Authorities have not yet charged the parents, but initially said they were investigating the deaths as homicides.

Blessings Myrical Jean Simmons, age 6 months, received six routine vaccines at a well-baby visit on January 13. The next morning, her parents found the baby dead in her bassinet. The autopsy lists SIDS as the infant’s cause of death, and no charges were filed against the parents.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Continue Reading

Trending

X