segunda-feira, 1 de dezembro de 2025

The Spectator - It’s getting harder for scientists not to believe in God

 (personal underlines)

It’s getting harder for scientists not to believe in God

Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins (Getty images)

Many Baby Boomers are sceptical about God. They think that believing in a higher power is probably incompatible with rationality. Over the last few centuries, religious belief has appeared to be in rapid decline, and materialism (the idea that the physical world is all there is to reality) has been on the rise, as the natural outcome of modern science and reason.

But if this scepticism is common among my older generation, times are changing. As we come to the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the tables are turning – with scientific discoveries making people question the very things they took for granted and thought rational. Perhaps surprisingly, Gen Z are leading the way, purporting that the belief in God’s existence might not be just a trend on the rise – it’s a rationally sound conviction, in line with their attitude towards science and religion.

While the findings of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin created the impression that the workings of the universe could be explained without a creator God, the last century has seen what I call ‘The Great Reversal of Science’. With a number of break-through scientific discoveries – including thermodynamics, the theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics, plus the Big Bang and theories of expansion, heat death, and fine-tuning of the universe – the pendulum of science has swung back in the opposite direction.

More and more convincingly, and perhaps in spite of itself, science today is pointing to the fact that, to be explained, our universe needs a creator. In the words of Robert Wilson, Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of the echo of the Big Bang in 1978, and an agnostic: ‘If all this is true [the Big Bang theory] we cannot avoid the question of creation.’

It is true that the existence of God cannot be proved incontrovertibly. While absolute proofs only exist in the theoretical domains of mathematics and logic, relative proofs are what we normally deal with, and what is generally considered ‘evidence’ in everyday life. If, like Richard Dawkins, we take a rational and scientific approach to the existence or non-existence of God, then we should only be persuaded by multiple, independent, and converging pieces of evidence.

Scientists across many fields of inquiry are now coming round to the idea that the thermal death of the universe and the Big Bang are strong evidence that our cosmos had an absolute beginning, while the fine-tuning of the universe and the transition from inert matter to life imply (separately) some more extraordinary fine tuning, showing the intervention of a creator external to our world.

With sets of converging evidence from different scientific disciplines – cosmology to physics, biology to chemistry – it is increasingly difficult for materialists to hold their position. Indeed, if they deny a creator, then they must accept and uphold that the universe had no beginning, that some of the greatest laws of physics (the principle of conservation of mass-energy, for example) have been violated, and that the laws of nature have no particular reason to favour the emergence of life.

Weighing up the evidence on each side of the scale is a matter of intellectual rigour, and the question ‘Is there a creator God?’ is one we should all be asking ourselves, with serious implication for every one of us. What’s intriguing is that it’s actually the youth, who you’d think would be more preoccupied with more mundane and practical concerns, that are leading the way.

Last August, a YouGov survey revealed that belief in God has doubled among young people (aged 18-24) in the last four years, with atheism falling in the same age group from 49 per cent in August 2021 to 32 per cent. Interpreting the data, Rev Marcus Walker, rector of St Bartholomew the Great in the City of London, mentioned that young people ‘seem really interested in the intellectual and spiritual side of religion’.

Another report from the think tank Theos revealed that Gen Z have a more balanced perspective towards the relationship between science and religion. Over one in two young people think religion has a place in the modern world, and the majority (68 per cent) of Gen Z respondents believe that you could be religious and be a good scientist.

Far from painting a picture in which the number of people believing in God is dwindling (which has been the usual narrative in the last century), this research suggests we are at the dawn of a revolution – one in which belief in God is not simply supported by science, but embraced by younger generations, too.

In general, Gen Z seems to have positive and hopeful view of science’s impact on the world. According to recent figures, 49 per cent of Gen Z trust scientists and academics the most to lead global change, far ahead of politicians (8 per cent) and world leaders (6 per cent) (WaterAid, 2025). And yet, they are still spiritually curious: their trust in science doesn’t preclude them from wanting to explore spirituality and contemplating something bigger than our universe.

Could they be the ones showing older generations a new way forward, one in which religion and science can coexist? And, more to the point, we now have the scientific evidence that would support a big shift in perspective. In the words of 91-year-old Carlo Rubbia, Professor of Physics at Harvard and Nobel laureate: ‘We come to God by the path of reason, others follow the irrational path.’

Polemia - « On veut nous imposer une vérité sur le climat ! »

(soulignements personnels) 


Jean-Yves Le Gallou : « On veut nous imposer une vérité sur le climat ! »

Jean-Yves Le Gallou : « On veut nous imposer une vérité sur le climat ! »

Jean-Yves Le Gallou, président de Polémia, était invité par Radio Courtoisie le 10 novembre 2025 et a présenté le programme du prochain Forum de la Dissidence, consacré à l’alarmisme climatique. Pour vous inscrire au Forum ainsi que pour prendre connaissance de toutes les informations pratiques, c’est par ici : https://my.weezevent.com/forum-alarmisme-climatique.

1. La vidéo du passage de Jean-Yves Le Gallou
2. Le verbatim du passage de Jean-Yves Le Gallou

La vidéo du passage de Jean-Yves Le Gallou

Retrouvez la présentation de Jean-Yves Le Gallou de 1h15m36s à 1h23m13s (vous arrivez directement au bon endroit en cliquant sur la vidéo intégrée ci-dessous) :

Le verbatim du passage de Jean-Yves Le Gallou

Écoutez, moi, j’envie beaucoup les États-Unis. J’envie beaucoup Donald Trump et Bill Gates de pouvoir affirmer certaines choses. Nous organisons, à Polémia, un forum de la dissidence précisément consacré à l’alarmisme climatique, présenté comme un nouvel avatar du totalitarisme. Et manifestement, nous avons beaucoup de mal à être entendus en France : il y a très peu d’inscrits. Je pense qu’il existe une forme de peur, une crainte de contester la religion climatique, la religion de l’alarmisme climatique, encore très présente en France.

Le colloque aura lieu samedi prochain, de 10 h à 18 h, à Paris. Le thème en sera : « L’alarmisme climatique, nouvel avatar du totalitarisme ».

La première intervention portera sur la notion de vérité scientifique, présentée par un professeur de philosophie. La vérité scientifique suppose le libre débat ; or, aujourd’hui, on cherche à imposer une vérité unique dans le domaine climatique : qu’il y a un réchauffement (ce qui est vrai), qu’il est d’origine humaine (ce qui est discutable) et qu’il s’agit d’une catastrophe (ce qui l’est encore plus). Le débat libre n’existe plus : seuls ceux qui vont dans le sens de la doxa peuvent s’exprimer. Les chercheurs n’obtiennent des financements que s’ils contribuent à prouver la thèse officielle – celle d’un réchauffement catastrophique d’origine anthropique.

Ensuite, plusieurs chercheurs, dont certains prix Nobel et anciens membres du GIEC revenus sur leurs positions, présenteront diverses thèses contestant les vérités établies. Enfin, nous analyserons, à Polémia, les mécanismes de cette propagande permanente : dans les médias, le divertissement, la publicité, les chartes d’entreprise. Il existe une véritable obsession autour de la thèse de l’alarmisme climatique, celle d’un réchauffement catastrophique et exclusivement d’origine humaine.

L’un des arguments souvent avancés pour parler de catastrophe est la montée des eaux : 35 cm en un siècle, soit l’équivalent d’une marche de trottoir – non négligeable, certes, mais relative. On pourrait citer bien d’autres exemples du même ordre. Il y a, dans ce discours, une forme de folie.

Rappelons que le froid est douloureux et difficile, tandis que le chaud est plus confortable. Les alarmistes rétorquent que ce réchauffement produit des dérèglements – tempêtes, catastrophes naturelles – mais cela est inexact. L’érosion des montagnes, les changements de cours des rivières résultent souvent de catastrophes naturelles anciennes ; les reliefs actuels sont les conséquences de ces événements. Aujourd’hui, chaque phénomène météorologique exceptionnel est interprété comme un effet du « dérèglement climatique », concept absurde puisqu’il suppose que le climat ait déjà été « réglé ». À quelle époque ? Au petit âge glaciaire ? À l’optimum médiéval ?

Le climat a toujours varié : froid entre 1350 et 1850, plus chaud avant au Groenland, plus chaud encore à l’époque romaine. Les alarmistes affirment qu’il y a un réchauffement depuis 1850, début de l’ère industrielle – mais aussi fin du petit âge glaciaire. Coïncidence historique ! L’historien Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie l’a montré : les climats ont connu d’importantes variations au cours de l’histoire, bien supérieures à celles observées aujourd’hui.

L’actuel réchauffement, d’environ 1,5 °C en un siècle, existe, mais faut-il y voir une catastrophe ? Est-il d’origine humaine ? C’est de cela qu’il faudrait pouvoir débattre librement. Or, cette liberté se réduit : le président Macron a annoncé vouloir lutter contre la « désinformation climatique », et un député prépare une proposition de loi de vérité climatique.

Je vous recommande enfin la lecture de Comprendre l’incroyable écologie de Bertrand Alliot, sous-titré Analyse d’un écolo traître. Il y défend la liberté de recherche qu’il a payée très cher, étant désormais banni du monde universitaire. Bertrand Alliot sera d’ailleurs évoqué durant notre forum.

Jean-Yves Le Gallou
11/11/2025

Desporto - Andebol (SCP - Füchse Berlin)

 Os carrascos do Sporting em andebol na Liga dos Campeões: o endiabrado Gidsel e o poderoso Andersson


No pavilhão em 13.11.2025 com o Filipe



Gata Tri

 






The Spectator - Why are American sports so boring?

 

(personal underlines)

Why are American sports so boring?

The country has exported its culture, its food and its cars – but not its games

(Getty)

I’m in an urban park surrounded by fast-food outlets: Taco Bell, the Golden Arches, KFC, Starbucks. The sound system is blasting out raucous rap music; all the men are in blingy sportswear, baseball caps, Nike shoes. I can see big shiny billboards advertising iPhones, Pepsi Max or the latest Marvel movies.

In short, I could be almost anywhere in the world – Australia, Brazil, Germany – such is the power of American exports: soft and hard, cultural and consumerist, Coke to Tesla to Friends. And yet I know I’m in America, specifically in the SoFi Stadium, Los Angeles, because I’m about to encounter the one thing America has, peculiarly, not been able to export, not with any great success: American sport. And I want to work out why.

Over the years I’ve seen three of the big American pro sports – ice hockey, baseball, basketball. Each has taught me something. Now I am approaching the pinnacle of American pro games, the most hyper-American of them all: the NFL. Specifically, the Los Angeles Chargers versus the Washington Commanders (previously the Redskins, until woke came for gridiron). And I’m hoping this final piece of the puzzle will provide an answer. Are American sports simply duff, hence unexportable, or is something else going on? Patriotic Yanks may want to scroll away now.

My first collision with the shoulder-padded muscularity of American sports was an ice hockey match decades ago, which I attended with my expat brother in a part of the American Midwest so cold, bleak and godforsaken it was actually in Canada. No matter – it’s all the same. It’s fair to say I wasn’t impressed.

The problems with ice hockey begin at the start: the conceptual basis. Ice hockey is the only sport that crucially depends on a very specific weather condition – iciness. Imagine if you came up with that notion today. ‘It’s like rugby, but you can only play if it’s sleeting.’ ‘Chess, but during a tornado.’

Then there’s the total invisibility of the puck, which is basically a penny tossed across space – a black dot flying faster than the human eye can register. That’s probably why the players fight so much: to distract the audience from the fact that they can’t tell what’s going on. But even the fighting looks strange and contrived – a bunch of Michelin men trying to wrestle badly on grease, as the crowd screams because they haven’t had their eighth hot dog. And yet, it wasn’t all bad. I liked the noise and passion and good-natured rivalry. And the hot dogs.

Then I tried baseball. It was a second-tier game between two OK teams, and it felt like a fifth-tier match in a 19th dimension. This was a shame because I’d been looking forward to baseball; I’d been told it was the most thoughtful, poignant, artistic: the American cricket.

It is not the American cricket. It is the American version of a kids’ game in a park with rules imposed by 12th-century theologians and everyone looks stupid because they’re wearing mismatched pyjamas. It is also slow – but not the poetic slowness of a five-day Test match, with its surges and longueurs, its tea-times, microdramas, near-deadly fast bowlers; it is certainly not the Ring Cycle of triumph, disaster and bittersweet draws that is a good Test series. Baseball is just slow. And the fittest man on the pitch is the guy selling beer.

My encounter with basketball was worse. Basketball is superficially attractive, yet simultaneously dull, tiresome, squeaky and aimed at three-year-olds – the same way noisy toys are aimed at three-year-olds, banging out the same jingle until you want to cry. In basketball the jingle is the score. All they do is score. Oh look – they’ve scored again. Wow, they’ve scored. Wait, someone scored? MAKE IT STOP. Nope, they’ve scored again. The final score is 138–135. I do like the phrase ‘slam dunk’.

Also, basketball can only be played by people over 7ft 10in – the same way British poetry prizes can only be won by thoughtful people from Ghana. Therefore it’s very niche, which prevents young kids from ever aspiring to play it at the highest level. It takes away one of the major appeals of any sport. No one really wants to grow up to be 7ft 10in – it’s a pain on flights.

So what about the NFL? I don’t know, really, because I’ve left LA’s magnificent SoFi Stadium after ‘the first quarter’, which took 17 hours, because everyone stopped playing as soon as something remotely exciting happened – just in case you were in danger of being entertained – giving you even more time to buy a pint of beer for £23.

I do remember a kind of ‘touchdown’, which seemed fun, but then I learned about the whole ‘quarter’ thing, and the fact there were still three quarters to go. I worked out that if I stayed I’d probably miss my daughter’s graduation ceremony – and she’s only in her first year at uni. And so, after my grand experiment, what is my conclusion? Are American sports simply terrible? Is that why they can only export them to countries they’ve nuked?

Honest answer? No. I might find American sports laughable, but then an awful lot of sports are laughable. American sports are no slower, sillier or stranger than sumo wrestling, shinty, Aussie rules or curling. Therefore the reason for the failure of American sports is different: they were out-competed.

At the time when the great global sports were being established – 1850 to 1950 – it was the misfortune of American sports to emerge just as Britain was imposing its favoured games planet-wide. And say what you like about Britain and its dentistry – the British are the world’s greatest nation, by a distance, at inventing and/or codifying sport. From the genius simplicity of ‘soccer’ to the fluent brutality of rugby to the white-flanneled lyricism of cricket. Also golf, boxing, tennis, badminton, ping-pong. We even invented skiing – and we don’t have places to ski. Even now we are exporting our pub games (snooker and darts are two of the fastest-growing sports on the planet).

So, sorry America. No one likes to watch or play your sports, but it’s not because they’re uniquely bad – they’re just a bit overblown and mediocre. It’s because you got your ass whipped in open competition for sporting consumer tastes. Which is, ironically, a very American outcome.

Música - Koyaanisqatsi (Philip Glass)


 











https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4Vt0UGwmgQ

The Spectator - The army is too woke for war

 

(personal underlines)

The army is too woke for war

Last month, in a two-page letter to colonels of corps and regiments, the Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General David Eastman, inadvertently exposed the moral confusion, panic even, possessing parts of the British Army.

Invited to dine by retired and serving officer members of the private London club Boodle’s, Eastman was dismayed to discover that there were ‘restrictions on the rooms that can be accessed’ by women. In his subsequent letter, he expresses concern that, even in mixed clubs, ‘rules, policies or cultural practices may not align with the army’s commitment to inclusivity’.

And so, like Widmerpool in his pomp, he calls for corps and regiments to review their affiliations with private members’ clubs and insists that they ‘engage’ with offending clubs to ‘advocate for change’, which he says ‘offers an opportunity to influence positive change beyond the army’ (constitutional overreach, surely?). If that fails, Eastman concludes, regiments should ‘disassociate’. It is, he says, ‘a strategic necessity’.

So there we have it: without inclusion, the British Army will fail in its strategic mission. Unless of course diversity, equity and inclusion – DEI – has become, as many fear, the end in itself.

The evidence suggests these fears are not unfounded. Messaging on such matters as non-gender-specific language and unconscious bias has sometimes seemed more important than uncompromising fitness standards and the exercise of robust command. Reaction to the letter by regimental colonels, many of them battle-experienced generals both serving and retired, has been disbelief, dismay and anger.

DEI has also begun to erode the regimental system on which the army operates, which has already been progressively undermined in the past 20 years. Functions of command have been appropriated by ‘whole-force management’. Regimental identity, a key element in what makes soldiers fight and endure, has been progressively homogenised by such things as petty restrictions on cherished traditions, of which dress is perhaps the least important but the most visual, and the alienation of traditional recruiting areas.

In 2021, with applications falling, the armed forces increased its target for female recruiting from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. Six years earlier, under pressure from the then prime minister David Cameron, all roles had been opened to women. This was against the advice of many infantry commanders, who argued that while support arms such as artillery and engineers are task-orientated, the infantry and armoured corps confront the enemy face-to-face – a visceral business needing exceptional physical strength and prolonged team intimacy.

The number of female infantry recruits may have proved insignificant, but the policy change turbocharged the cause of DEI as women were now theoretically on absolute equal terms. Yet the record of integration has too often been unedifying. In 2021, the Defence Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces published a report revealing discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment on an alarming scale.

The rise of woke policies in the army matters because it hides the real issue: our military is woefully undermanned and under-equipped. In my recent review of Ben Barry’s book The Rise and Fall of the British Army 1975-2025, I suggested that while on paper things still look moderately impressive, in the words of General Sir Richard Barrons (who with Lord George Robertson and Fiona Hill wrote the recent defence review), the army is ‘fielding holograms of capability’. Savagely reduced in size and de-equipped by obsolescence, underinvestment, poor procurement and Ukraine, the army, concludes Barry, ‘might be able to generate a single division of about 30,000 troops, for a one-off intervention’, but that’s about it. In the 50 years that Barry chronicles, army manpower has fallen from 167,000 to 72,500; the proportion actually capable of combat gets smaller and smaller.

The parlous state of infantry recruiting is both troubling and instructive. Latterly some 300 more soldiers have been leaving each month than are enlisting: a brigade’s worth in a year. Too often in the past, gaps in the ranks were closed up by amalgamating or restructuring regiments. Yet further recruiting shortfalls always followed. Detach a regiment from its recruiting area, dilute its local identity, take away its recruiting responsibility and contract out to Capita, and unsurprisingly the gaps open up again.

Capita’s answer has increasingly been to look for recruits overseas, conveniently justified by ‘diversity’. There’s meant to be a 15 per cent cap on non-UK soldiers per unit to facilitate integration, but the policy is wishful. Across the Coldstream Guards, for example, non-UK soldiers are believed to account for 24 per cent. In London Central Garrison, 35 per cent of soldiers are also understood to be non-UK. Of these, some 40 per cent are assessed as not having good enough English to be safely employed in support of the police in the event of a major terrorist attack.

In June last year, the Guards non-commissioned-officers at Catterick – men with Iraq and Afghanistan campaign medals – took the unprecedented step of writing to the Major General in command of the Household Division to say that too many non-UK nationals did not have the competence in English to be safe during live-firing training. Nor were they truly committed to serving, wanting only ‘to secure visa extensions in order to provide for their families back home’.

The army’s leadership manual says commanders must ‘encourage an open, collaborative and challenging culture’, but when the letter was leaked to the press, an army ‘spokesperson’ accused the authors of ‘falling short of the army’s values and standards’. Why would such committed NCOs want to continue serving?

Added to this, the Armed Forces are under increasing pressure from human rights lawyers. An open letter, published this week and signed by nine four-star generals, illustrates how perilous the situation is for many service men and women. ‘We feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends,’ the letter reads. ‘This is a corrosive form of “lawfare”, which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind.’ Who, seriously, would want to sign up and fight for their country against this backdrop? We are failing the men and women who want to defend us.

The Americans find it baffling. At a Policy Exchange forum recently, Mike Pompeo, former US secretary of state and first in his class at the West Point military academy, was asked how to recruit young British working-class males, traditionally the men standing ready to do violence so that people sleep peacefully in their beds at night. ‘Tell them they’re going to get to go to fight,’ he said.

Too often the Army’s recruiting message has been limp. The briefing day at Sandhurst for potential officers this year felt like a pitch for NGOs wanting a three-and-a-half-day week with golf on Wednesday afternoons.

In September, the US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, told his generals that woke was over and they should prepare for conflict: ‘Would you want [your own child] serving with… people who can’t meet basic standards, or in a unit where standards were lowered so certain types of troops could make it in, in a unit where leaders were promoted for reasons other than merit, performance and warfighting? The answer is not just no, it’s hell no… Because this job is life or death.’

The British Army needs the Hegseth message. It would certainly be music to the ears of one high-flying captain I know. She intends to leave the Army next year, fed up with the mantra of DEI instead of the recruiting slogan, now dropped, that first attracted her: ‘Be the best.’

The Spectator - Donald Trump is the real anti-fascist hero

 (personal underlines)


Donald Trump is the real anti-fascist hero

Donald Trump travels to Israel. (Getty)

Tell me: who has done more for the cause of anti-fascism? Real anti-fascism? Those masked mummy’s boys of the Antifa movement for whom ‘fighting fascism’ means little more than hurling abuse at blue-collar oiks who voted for Donald Trump? Or Donald Trump himself, the man they love to loathe, who today accomplished the miraculous feat of liberating 20 Israelis from the anti-Semitic hell of Hamas captivity? It’s Trump, isn’t it?

As of today, following the soul-stirring emancipation of the last living Israeli hostages, whenever I hear the phrase ‘anti-fascist’ I will think of Trump. Forget those sun-starved digital radicals who bark ‘Fascist!’ at Nigel Farage or the snotty lefties whose ‘anti-fascism’ entails yelling at working-class mums in pink tracksuits as they protest outside migrant hotels. Those people have sullied the noble cause of anti-fascism by appropriating it as a mask for their bourgeois sneering.

No, it was Trump who took the fight to fascism. He has cornered – we hope – a brutal organisation that was founded with the express intention of killing Jews and destroying the Jewish state. He has freed 20 men whose only ‘crime’ is that they were Jews in the Holy Land. He has landed a spectacular blow against the forces of Islamo-fascism and helped to fortify the beleaguered Jewish nation. Give me that over the am-dram activism of Antifa’s balaclava bores any day of the week.

Today should be the day that Trump Derangement Syndrome is laid to rest. No one has to agree with everything the US President says or does – that would be weird. But we should acknowledge that he has achieved something extraordinary. He expertly deployed both threats and talks to drag Hamas to the table. And, in the process, he made good on the 20th-century cry of ‘Never Again’ by securing the release of Jews from the limbo of Islamist cruelty.

We have just lived through one of the most extraordinary moral inversions of modern times. Truth and reason have been entirely turned on their heads these past two years. Israel was unjustly assaulted by a genocidal terror group, and yet it was Israel that was branded ‘genocidal. More than a thousand Jews were slaughtered by an army of anti-Semites, and yet it was the Jews who were called ‘racist’. Israel was ravaged by the war-making of a hostile neighbour, and yet it was Israel that was damned as warmonger.

Nowhere was this moral inversion more starkly, and more grossly, expressed than in relation to the hostages. These 251 men, women and children were the innocent victims of a fascistic rampage. And yet they were reimagined as ‘colonisers’ by activists in the West. Their posters were rabidly torn down. Their images were desecrated with slurs and insults. There was a time in late 2023 when many parts of London were papered with the flapping remnants of these posters following the frenzied clawing of anti-Israel activists.

The most shameful moment came in late October 2023, mere weeks after Hamas’s pogrom, when a poster in London featuring three-year-old twin girls, Emma and Yuli Cunio, was defiled in the most horrific way. Someone drew Hitler moustaches on these two children who’d been taken from their homes by Hamas. It was 2023 and Jewish kids were once more being treated as legitimate targets for bigoted invective. So much for ‘Never Again’.

Emma and Yuli were held in captivity with their mother, Sharon, for 52 days before being released in November 2023. Their father, David, was also kidnapped. The girls have asked after him every day for two years. Today they will be reunited with him: David is one of the 20 who has staggered back into the sunlight courtesy of Trump’s deal-making. Who has contributed more to the cause of humanity – the ‘Be Kind’ mob who desecrated posters of Emma and Yuli? Or the president who gave them their dad back?

Today is a day of celebration, tinged with sadness of course, given Israel is also due to receive the remains of 28 hostages who did not survive the Hamas hell. But tomorrow must be a day of reflection. We need to ask why so many in our own societies took the side not of the oppressed Jewish hostages but of their oppressors. Why so many chose to make excuses for Hamas while demonising the nation it invaded. Today we can share in Israel’s joy. Tomorrow we must interrogate the blackened Western soul that this infernal war has exposed.