Gordon Brown to condemn Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Gordon Brown will pledge “unbreakable” support to Israel

Gordon Brown to condemn Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Gordon Brown will pledge “unbreakable” support to Israel while launching his strongest attack yet on Iran. The Prime Minister will send a tough message to the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday, warning of imminent sanctions on oil and gas if he does not abandon his nuclear ambitions. In a landmark speech to the Israeli parliament, Mr Brown will say that Mr Ahmadinejad’s denial of Israel’s right to exist is “totally abhorrent”.

The European Union has already said it stands ready to push for a block on foreign investment in new Iranian oil and gas projects along with sanctions on the financial sector if the Gulf state does not comply with requests to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. British officials hinted that sanctions could extend to all parts of the oil industry in a bid to disrupt production by Iran, which exports some 2.5 million barrels a day. In his speech to the Knesset, the first by a British Prime Minister, Mr Brown will voice determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear programme. He will say that Iran now has a clear choice to make: “Suspend its nuclear programme and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not of one nation but of many nations.”

Mr Brown will tell Israel that it has Britain’s unequivocal support: “Britain is your true friend. A friend in difficult times as well as in good times, a friend who will stand beside you whenever your peace, your stability and your existence are under threat; a friend who shares an unbreakable partnership based on shared values of liberty, democracy and justice. “Britain and Israel continue to stand together. So to those who question Israel’s right to exist and

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk …

Tags: Genocide, Gordon Brown, Iran, Islamic nukes, Islamofascism, Israel, Ahmadinejad, Nukes, UK

Appeasing Islamofascism: The 'Christianne Amanpour' of the BBC - TV Series Has 'Extremist' Christian Beheading 'Moderate' Muslim

Appeasing Islamofascism: The 'Christiane Amanpour' of the BBC - TV Series Has 'Extremist' Christian Beheading 'Moderate' Muslim

New TV Series Has 'Extremist' Christian Beheading 'Moderate' Muslim

Last week, the BBC aired a new TV series titled "Bonekickers" touted as a "groundbreaking" show where "history comes alive," and a series that is "Based in fact." The premier episode, though features an odd thing if "fact" is the aim of the Beeb's new TV series: a Christian beheading a Muslim. Yeah, THAT is really a "fact" based premise, isn't it?

Of course, the few remaining Christians in Britain have found themselves a bit put out by this "fact based" show where it is a Christian beheading a Muslim instead of the other way 'round.

And it isn't just a beheading, the entire episode turns our current "fact based" reality on its head as the plot gives us a group of "right wing Christians" bent on purging England of its immigrant population, a group the TV series is fictionalizing as the "White Wings Alliance." In a day when extremist Muslims the world over are killing people for not being a Muslim, this show features the exact opposite situation. Christian "extremists" killing innocent, moderate Muslims. For what reason? Only the Beeb knows for sure.

The whole premise is so ridiculous that Andrew Anthony of the Guardian newspaper said, "A Martian watching TV drama of late would probably conclude that the country is crawling with homicidal Islamophobes, desperate to kill those few Muslims who have not already been interned by the government or shot by the police." In his droll way, of course, Anthony is saying that none of that is happening despite the outrageous plot line that appears in this "fact based" series.

The Independent's reviewer was no kinder saying, "Murderous Christian fundamentalists, like the ones on Bonekickers, are frequently on TV, but their Islamic counterparts rarely make an appearance. Our TV controllers have a tendency to make like the three wise monkeys when it comes to Muslim extremism: hear no evil, see no evil, broadcast no evil." So much for "facts."

From the Bonekickers website, the show is describe as such:

Bonekickers is a highly original six-part series about a dynamic team of archaeologists... As a team their skills combine under a variety of imperatives to extract bodies, books, weapons and all manner of artefacts which lead them into an investigation of the past that will unlock dangers and mysteries in the present.

Based in fact, the series has on board the expertise of Professor Mark Horton, Head of Archaeology at Bristol University, a specialist in the archaeology of historical societies around the world and Bonekickers consultant on the factual evidence and background to the relics featured in each episode.

In any case, many viewers complained about this upending of reality, so many so that the BBC had to respond with a statement. And the BBC has responded to critics of their new series quite unsatisfactorily, it seems.

Complaint

We've received some complaints from viewers who felt the scene featuring a beheading in Bonekickers on BBC One, Tuesday 8th July 2008 was inappropriate viewing.

The BBC's Response

We regret that some viewers felt the beheading scene was inappropriate. It appeared half way through episode one of Bonekickers, by which time the character's extreme fundamental belief' had been revealed, providing the audience with a good build up to the scene in question.

This storyline looked at religious fundamentalism within a fictional Christian group, and one character in particular who took his beliefs to an extreme. His ignorance and misguided behaviour lead to the beheading of a peaceful Asian Muslim character in the drama. His actions are clearly condemned by leading Muslim and Christian clerics. The drama also has the balance of a Christian character that has a deep faith which she uses humbly and only for good.

The killing and the method used reflected the flawed beliefs that the character had. It does not attempt to condone or glamorise such a violent act in any way. The drama seeks to highlight the consequences of a misguided fundamentalist taking his beliefs to violent extremes.

The inclusion of the scene had been carefully considered and was very much central to the story line and reflected the character's extreme fundamental beliefs and state of mind.

They regret nothing, of course.

So, lots of “extremist Christians” running about the countryside beheading moderate Muslims over there in England? There must be. After all, we did mention that this is a “fact based” series, didn’t we?

Speaking of bones, this appears to be another reason why the west hasn't the backbone to stand up to Islamic extremism, doesn't it?

(Photo credit: Blackstar.co.uk)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/07/13/new-tv-series-has-extremist-christian-beheading-moderate-muslim



The 'Christiane Amanpour' of the BBC ( http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2007/10/are_islamists_worse_than_other.php )...that infamous Islam-ized journalist's style of trivializing the real menace upon the world TODAY from Islamofascism by "equating" religions as "there are extremists everywhere"...




Technorati - BBC Islamofascism Christiane Amanpour Al Qaeda Infidels War on terror Anti west Jihad UK Eurabia Bonekickers Europe

(Islamic Apartheid extremism made) "No-go" (areas for non-Muslims) - Bishop defends comments

(Islamic Apartheid extremism made) "No-go" (areas for non-Muslims) - Bishop defends comments

Feb. 2008

'No-go' Bishop defends comments

The Bishop of Rochester has received death threats

A Church of England bishop who claimed Islamic extremism has made some places no-go areas for non-Muslims insists he was right to speak out on the issue.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali raised the issue last month in a Sunday Telegraph interview.

Now in a follow-up interview with the same newspaper, he accuses church leaders of not confronting the matter.

"The issue had to be raised. There are times when Christian leaders have to speak out. It's my duty," he says.

'Spiritual leaders'

Since making the comments in January he has received threats against himself and his family. Dr Nazir-Ali and his family are now under police protection.

In his latest interview, he insists his remarks were "based on evidence" and have been "strengthened as a result of overwhelming correspondence".

Do the British people really want to lose that rooting in the Christian faith that has given them everything they cherish?

Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali

He argues that a "spiritual and moral vacuum" has occurred in Britain over the past half-century.

Unless Christianity fills that void, he adds, something else may take its place - "and that could be Islam".

"Do the British people really want to lose that rooting in the Christian faith that has given them everything they cherish - art, literature, architecture, institutions, the monarchy, their value system, their laws?"

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, subsequently faced intense criticism after he said that the adoption of sharia law in the UK was "unavoidable".

But Dr Nazir-Ali tells the Sunday Telegraph that he strongly rejects this analysis.

"People of every faith should be free within the law to follow what their spiritual leaders direct them to, but that's very different saying their structures should replace that of the English legal system because there would be conflicts," he says.

He was born in Pakistan and has both a Christian and Muslim family background.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7261237.stm


---

Bishp Warns of 'Islamic areas' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7173599.stm

Technorati - Freedom 911 Al Qaida Al Qaeda Al Qaida Bin Laden Islamofascism Islam Apes and pigs Terrorism Terrorist oganization Hamas 'palestinians' Al Aqsa Oppression Egypt Christians Jews Al Aqsa Muslims Christians Jews Arabs bombing Infidels Israel UK Sharia Security Iraq Iran Jihad West

As Europe Yields To Islamofascism, Is U.S. On The Same Path?

As Europe Yields To Islamofascism, Is U.S. On The Same Path?
thebulletin ^ February, 2008 Herb Denenberg

Herb Denenberg: The Advocate As Europe Yields To Islamofascism, Is U.S. On The Same Path? By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin 02/13/2008

The once mighty, the once invincible, the once courageous and brave-beyond-belief Britain is in the process of surrendering to Islamofascism without firing a shot. Here are the latest examples indicating how far along that process has gone:

British government ministers have declared that Islamic terrorism will no longer be so described. In the future, Muslim fanatics, murderers and suicide bombers will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity."

This new language, turning the truth on its head, was announced by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. She said that these Islamic murderers and terrorists were behaving contrary to their faith and are not acting in the name of Islam.

In her statement, she said, "As so many Muslims in the U.K. and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything these actions are anti-Islamic."

Other phrases that are not be used by people at the top of the British government are "war on terror" and "Islamic extremism." The director of public prosecution has also chimed in by saying that phrases that liken London to "a battlefield" will no longer be used. This perversion of language would even embarrass George Orwell.

The British government seems to be excusing and apologizing for those blowing up Britons in the name of Islam and Allah, and they are doing it without even being asked. One conservative member of parliament, Philip Davies, said that no Muslim constituent had ever complained to him about the term "Islamic extremism."

Mr. Davies went on to explain, "Whenever anyone refers to Islamic terrorism, they are not saying all Muslims are terrorist. Everybody knows what people mean is terrorists doing it in the name of Islam, misguidedly. If the government spent less time worrying about this and more time worrying about things such as having effective border controls, we would be getting somewhere."

Here is another step in the path of surrender to Islamofascism: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, recently called for the recognition of Islamic law in Britain. He said, "We have to think about the rule of law in a society of overlapping identities." The Web site www.thisislondon.co.uk reported, "He declared that sharia and parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives. This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorces for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest."

His critics rightly said this is sleepwalking to segregation and encourages segregation rather than integration. The archbishop has a formula to assure not the unification of Britain - but its disintegration.

The archbishop said it would be possible to develop "a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters so that power holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents. This may include aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorized structures of mediation and conflict resolution."

One critic put it this way, speaking of the archbishop: "He's one of the most influential Christian prelates in the world, and he is supposed to be standing up for Christianity. What he's doing is abandoning his own religion. If people come to this country, they should be prepared to compromise their own traditions to fit in with the host country." Another critic, an MP, said, "Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practice. But let's be absolutely clear: All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

These two developments suggest that Britain has lost confidence in its own laws, culture, values, history and traditions. And it suggests it lacks the confidence and strength to resist the coming onslaught of Islamofascism. Kenneth Clark, in his book Civilization, noted, "It is lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilization. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion just as effectively as by bombs."

This calls to mind one of the great points made in the book America Alone by Mark Steyn, whose work also appears in The Bulletin. He tells the story of a British general in India, when it was still controlled by the British Empire. This general was confronted with suttee, the Indian custom of burning on a funeral pyre, by the widow of a man who had just died. He told the Indians, "You have your culture and we have ours. You can build your funeral pyre, but next to it we will build our gallows." That kind of confidence in the British culture has been replaced by a kind of cowardice and lack of confidence, reflected in these case studies.

If you read America Alone, Londonistan by Melanie Phillips and While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, you'll be convinced that Europe is lost to Islamofascism and that soon, in Mr. Steyn's words, it will be "America alone" to defend freedom. These two case studies, described above, show how far the British have gone from the spirit and tradition of Winston Churchill to sniveling and surrendering cowards that have lost their center and their way.

One of the world's most renowned and respected scholars of the Middle East and Islam agrees with this grim view. Prof. Bernard Lewis says that the Muslims "seem to be about to take over Europe." He says that Islam is about to become the dominant force in Europe because the Europeans have abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control in the name of political correctness.

Mr. Lewis makes it clear that what is at stake is not just the form of prayer or whatnot. He is concerned about the growing Muslim power in Europe along with its rising support of extremist and terrorist movements within Islam. Mr. Lewis says that Europe has not fought the threat, and has just given up.

This development is of great concern not only because of the importance of Europe in the free world, but also because many believe the United States are on the same track toward Muslim domination, just at a less developed stage than Europe.

Ms. Phillips writes, "The [British] government had quite simply handed over policy on extremism to the extremists. This was no accident but a deliberate policy of riding the Islamic tiger. Asked why the government was using radicals in this way, [then British Home Secretary Charles] Clarke replied that it was to demonstrate to the Muslim community that democracy entailed engaging with a range of views rather than blowing up one's opponents.

"Clarke appeared to think that he could use dialogue with the Islamists as a kind of role-play, which would have no effect on government policy but would show that talking was the 'British way.' This was hopelessly naïve. It took no account of the fact that it raised the profile of such radicals and gave them credibility and thus even more clout within their community. Above all it showed that, like so many others, Clarke did not grasp that religious ideology rather than bombs was the principal weapon in the war."

Mr. Lewis explains how and why Europe is giving away its culture, religion and values. He says, "Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence. They have no respect for their own culture." He says that Europeans have "surrendered" on every issue related to Islam in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multiculturalism." Some observers of the American scene say that is exactly what is in the process of killing us. Yes, America is also awash with deadly self-abasement (anti-Americanism), political correctness and multiculturalism.

The Cybercast News Service reports, "Members of Congress are seeking more information regarding the firing of a top terrorism expert at the Pentagon following reports that he was dismissed for being too critical of Islamic law. Earlier this month, the Pentagon Joint Staff told Stephen Coughlin, a specialist on Islamic law at the Pentagon, that his contract would not be renewed in March. The firing apparently resulted from pressure by pro-Muslim officials working in the Department of Defense, according to numerous news reports." This story was broke by intelligence analyst Kenneth R. Timmerman, author of Shadow Warriors.

Emanuel Winston, a respected Middle East analyst, wrote that this is more than a bad personnel decision: "There is every indication that Islamists have deeply penetrated the organs of the U.S. government. An expert on Islam in the Pentagon [the aforementioned Coughlin] was recently fired due to pressure by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. This dismissal was provoked by Hesham Islam, a personal aide to England. Heshem Islam was born and raised in Egypt. He is reported to be heavily involved with the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA), which has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror funding case involving the Holy Land Foundation. Strange things are happening at the Pentagon and intel agencies but not so strange as what is called the Arabist U.S. State Department. Recently, according to John Bolton, former American ambassador to the U.N., the State Department sent several of its pro-Arab staff into the Pentagon and 16 American intel agencies to initiate their own policy."

This whole problem and process has been aggravated by the incessant anti-American journalism of the mainstream media, and the virulent anti-American scholarship and pronouncements coming from so many of our colleges and universities. And this trend will be further aggravated if political power shifts leftward - to politicians and a Democratic Party that appear to lack the will to fight and win the war on terror and the war against Islamofascism. It is no exaggeration to say that the ongoing political campaign may well determine whether civilization as we know it will survive, and whether America - alone or not - can fight and win the war against Islamofascism that has been thrust upon it.

Those with questions about the direction of the Democratic Party and the left should look more closely at its driving force. David Horowitz, author and founder of the online newsmagazine FrontPageMag.com, has written many important books, but this may be his most important: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.

He writes, "This is a book about the political left in America, its problematic allegiances with Islamic radicals, its influence on the Democratic party, its opposition to the war In Iraq and its impact on the war on terror." A more comprehensive and less diplomatic summary statement might go like this: The American left - including the driving force of the Democratic Party, most of the mainstream media and most of our major colleges and universities - have become irrationally critical of America, its military and its foreign policy. They have also made alliances with or lent support to our enemies and have damaged our ability to defend our shores against radical Islam and other sources of terrorism. They are one of the reasons we may, in Kenneth Clark's words, lose the confidence it takes to maintain and defend our civilization.

Herb Denenberg, a former Pennsylvania insurance commissioner and professor at the Wharton School, is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the National?Academy of Arts and Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=19290780&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576392&rfi=6

Technorati - Freedom 911 Al Qaida Al Qaeda Al Qaida Bin Laden Islamofascism Islam Apes and pigs Terrorism Terrorist oganization Hamas 'palestinians' Al Aqsa Oppression Egypt Christians Jews Al Aqsa Muslims Christians Jews Arabs bombing Infidels Israel UK Sharia Security Iraq Iran Jihad West

‘RAMZI YOUSEF’ - THE EPITOME OF ‘ISLAMOFASCISM’

‘RAMZI YOUSEF’ - THE EPITOME OF ‘ISLAMOFASCISM’

Q. - WHAT DOES ATTACKING WESTERN TARGETS, PLOTTING TO KILL THE POPE,ASSASSINATING A MUSLIM WOMAN IN A HIGH POSITION BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN, BOMBINGWTC - 911, AL QAEDA, LONDON BOMBING, PLAYING “PALESTINIAN VICTIM”, ALL HAVE INCOMMON?

A. - ‘RAMZI YOUSEF’ - AKA THE EPITOME OF ‘ISLAMOFASCISM’.

What ‘Iraq war’ excuse?we are talking 1993-1995!


————————————-

CNN - ‘Proud terrorist’ gets life for Trade Center bombing - Jan…Ramzi Yousef’s full sentence — life in prison plus 240 years — follows two… Six people were killed in the February 26, 1993, bombing of the twin towers…http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/

terrorismfiles.org : Ramzi YousefRamzi Yousef is the convictedmastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He also plotted to bomb U.S.airliners in January 1995. …http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individuals/ramzi_yousef.html

Ramzi Yousef :: Individual Terrorists :: The Investigative Project…Ramzi Yousef was captured in Pakistan. Yousef received a life sentence forthe Bojinka plot and 240 years for the 1993 WTC bombing. …http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/105

MIPT Terrorism Knowledge BaseWithin months of the World Trade Centerbombing, Yousef began plotting the assassination of Prime Minister Bhutto, aplan that fell apart in July 1993, …http://www.tkb.org/KeyLeader.jsp?memID=5632

Benazir planning to return to Pak despite threat, Exiled former primeminister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto has said that she … According to Bhutto,when Ramzi Yusef was captured by her government in 1995 …http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/10bhutto.htm

Ramzi Yusuf tried to assassinate me,” Bhutto said. … “I offered to USauthorities to set up the FBI office in Pakistan in 1993 so that effectiveaction …http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=67510

Complete 911 Timeline: Ramzi YousefRamzi Yousef, the future bomber ofthe WTC in 1993, stays in the Philippines and trains militants there inbomb-making. According to Philippine intelligence …http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?other_al-qaeda_operatives=complete_911_timeline_ramzi_yousef

Bojinka Plot — A Test Run. Ramzi Yousef plants a small bomb on aPhilippine Airlines plane. The bomb explodes during the second leg of the tripand kills a …http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/cron.html

CBC: The Secret History of 9/11 : Ramzi Yousef, Terrorist, At 11:43 am,just off the coast of Okinawa, the bomb exploded. … In 1995, Ramzi Yousef’splot to attack US landmarks with aircraft was taken seriously. …http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/timeline.html London Air Bomb Design May Also Trace To Ramzi Yousef Bush Ups…As many have noted today, the thwarted plot to bomb U.S.-bound airlinersappears to date back to Ramzi Yousef’s Bojinka 1995 plot. …http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2006_08_10_exclusives.html

Bin Laden Connections To Philippine Terror Explored, Ramzi Yousef Trained Bomb-makers in the Philippines … Plans for the raid were found alongwith evidence of a plot by two bin Laden assassins to kill the …http://www.int-review.org/terr28a.html-

Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S.airplaneshttp://www.opinionjournal.com/search/exec/htsearch.cgi?words=ramzi;page=4

Liquid bomb plot: not the first time Features The First Post, Thereis something both familiar and novel about the terrorist plot outlined …worked with Ramzi Yousef, also on bin Laden’s payroll, on the 1993 car bomb…http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?menuID=2&subID=818

All about The Killing of Rabbi Kahane: Jihad in America, El-Sayid Nosair’s assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, the founder of the Jewish Defense… For example, when Ramzi Yusef was arrested in Pakistan in 1995,…http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/elsayid_nosair/7.html

Ramzi Yousef, the British-educated extremist who planned the 1993 bombing of the World Trade … and plotted to kill the Pope…http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,,550411,00.html

Al-Qaeda planned to assassinate Pope: report - smh.com.auAlthough the1995 plot had been publicised and attributed to local terrorists … The bombwas reportedly constructed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a life …http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/11/1036308581808.html


Freedom 911 Al Qaida Al Qaeda Iraq Bin Laden Islamofascism Islam Apes and pigs Terrorism Terrorist oganization Hamas 'palestinians' Al Aqsa Alaqsa Muslims Arabs Saudi Arabis bombing Infidels Israel Lebanon Kuwait Bhutto Philppines Pakistan Ramzi Yousef Eurabia Security Iraq Iran Jihad West heckler Bill Clinton conspiracy theories

Eiffel Tower lookin' good tonight - Sarkozy: America can count on France

Sarkozy: America can count on France
Baltimore Sun, United States -

And because of that America can count on France in its battle on terror.” America might also be able to count on France as a full partner in NATO. ...
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/sarkozy_america_can_count_on_f.html

Bush-Sarkozy Text

Wednesday November 7, 2007 10:16 PM
By The Associated Press

Text of the news conference Wednesday by President Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at Mount Vernon, Va., as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions.

BUSH: Mr. President, welcome. Thank you very much for coming here to Mount Vernon. And thank you for coming to the United States.

I think it's safe to say that you've impressed a lot of people here on your journey. You bring a lot of energy, enthusiasm for your job, love of your country and a strong set of universal values in your heart.

We've just had an extensive conversation, one that you'd expect good friends to have.

We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions for the sake of peace.

We talked about the Middle East and the upcoming talks at Annapolis, Maryland.

We spent some time on Kosovo, and I appreciate the president's leadership on Kosovo.

I can't thank the president enough for his willingness to stand with young democracies as they struggle against extremists and radicals. And one such democracy is Afghanistan.

Mr. President, your leadership on that issue for your country was very impressive. You sent a very clear message. It's clear that you're a man who does what he says he's going to do. It's the kind of fellow I like to deal with.

And so, Mr. President, I also want to thank your administration and your strong stance for human rights and human dignity. Whether they be those who are oppressed in Burma or Darfur or on the island of Cuba, France's voice is important and it's clear that the human rights of every individual are important to the world.

And I look forward to advancing peace and freedom with you, Mr. President. Our bilateral relations are important. They are strong. And we intend to keep them that way.

And so welcome here to George Washington's old home. Proud to have you in America. Thanks for coming.

SARKOZY (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I want to thank President Bush, his administration, and all Americans, who have welcomed us in such exceptional fashion. I get the distinct sense that it is France that has been welcomed so warmly, with so much friendship, so much love. This was my hope, my ambition. And with Bernard Kouchner, Christine Lagarde, Rachida Dati and myself, this is exactly what we wanted.

We have been very moved, deeply moved, by your wonderful welcome, together with Mrs. Laura Bush yesterday at the White House. I especially enjoyed the skit of the dialogue between George Washington and Lafayette that we witnessed.

The tokens of friendship that we have seen since we have been here, your open-mindedness, and the fact that we can address any and every subject, all those that you mentioned, sir, even though the European defense policy and NATO have also been addressed, environmental issues, which are close to our heart, and Afghanistan.

I said that we would stay there because what is at stake is the credibility of the Atlantic Alliance and the fight against terror.

We spent hours discussing important issues, commercial, economic and others, and I would say that we have done so in a spirit of openness and trust and that is something I have been particularly struck by. And I can tell you, that this visit I think has been very widely covered in France.

And when I say that the French people love the American people, that is the truth and nothing but the truth.

Now, I spoke at length this morning, and I think the best would be that after President Bush, whom I wish to thank once again, we could answer any questions you may have.

Q: Mr. President, you came down so hard on Burma and other nations for their crackdowns on pro-democracy demonstrators, yet you seem to be giving Musharraf a pass. So the question is, why are you going so soft on Musharraf? Is there a double standard?

BUSH: I spoke to President Musharraf right before I came over here to visit with President Sarkozy. And my message was that we believe strongly in elections and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform. You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time.

So I had a very frank discussion with him.

Look, our objective is the same in Burma as it is in Pakistan, and that is to promote democracy.

There is a difference, however. Pakistan has been on the path to democracy. Burma hadn't been on the path to democracy. And it requires different tactics to achieve the common objective.

And as I told you, I just spoke to President Musharraf before I came here and my message was very plain, very easy to understand, and that is, the United States wants you to have the elections as scheduled and take your uniform off.

You want to call on somebody?

SARKOZY (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In France, I don't choose - I don't pick the journalists.

BUSH: You don't get to choose? Who chooses?

I choose?

Who would you like me to choose?

Oh, he chose. Wait a minute, didn't last very long, did it?

SARKOZY (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I didn't choose. I indicated a general direction.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President.

My question is on Iraq. Mr. President, this morning you talked at length about Afghanistan, Iran, but not Iraq.

And I wanted to ask both of you: Is France reconciled with the United States, as the United States is reconciled with France?

So what about Iraq?

Can France, for instance, help to get out of the Iraqi quagmire?

And, President Bush, where do you stand on Iraq and your domestic debate on Iraq?

Do you have a timetable for withdrawing troops?

BUSH: I don't - you know quagmire is an interesting word. If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you'd be saying: God, I love freedom, because that's what's happened.

And there are killers and radicals and murderers who kill the innocent to stop the advance of freedom. But freedom's happening in Iraq. And we're making progress.

And I can't thank the president enough for sending his foreign minister to Baghdad. It was a clear message that freedom matters, that when people are struggling to live in freedom, that those of us who have the comfort of a free society ought to help them.

We had a difference of opinion with your great country over whether or not I should have used military force to enforce U.N. demands. I reminded a TV reporter - I don't know if the person's here or not - but I said, I just want to remind you that (U.N. resolution) 1441 was supported by France and the United States, which clearly said to the dictator, you will disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.

Now, I'm the kind of person that, when somebody says something, I take them for their word.

Having said that, we had a difference of opinion. But I don't sense any difference of opinion now, that a struggling democracy wants help from those of us who live in the comfort of free societies.

And, Mr. President, the strong gesture of sending your foreign minister there wasn't a message to the United States, because we're good friends. It was a message to the Iraqi citizens that said, We hear your cries for freedom. We want you to succeed. Because one of the lessons of history is free societies yield peace.

And so I appreciate your leadership on that issue, and I want to thank you foreign minister for - for - I don't see your foreign minister.

Look, the guy was here.

Oh, there he is, yes, next to - like the president was blocking.

Next to Madam Rice.

Anyway, thank you, sir.

SARKOZY (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Allow me to give you two answers in one.

On Pakistan, yes, we're worried about the situation. It's worrisome, and we need to have elections as swiftly as possible.

You cannot combat extremism using the same methods as extremists. And it is very important, it is of the essence, that Pakistan organize elections. And, like President Bush, I wish this to take place as speedily as possible.

Let me remind you that this is a country of 150 million inhabitants who happen to have nuclear weapons. This is very important for us, that one day we should wake up with a government, an administration in Pakistan which is in the hands of the extremists.

And we should, each and everyone of us, think about this. The principles, the values that we uphold and that we defend, and we must continue to uphold. And then there's the complexity, as it were, in the field. That's why it's important to convene elections - call elections.

Now, on Iraq, Bernard Kouchner's trip to Iraq was very successful. What does France want? A united Iraq. No one - it is in no one's interest to see Iraq dismantled. We want a democratic Iraq. We want a diverse Iraq where each component - component element of Iraqi society has learned to live with others, an Iraq which can administer and govern itself and that has the means of ensuring the peace and security of every one of its citizens.

And that is exactly Bernard Kouchner's message when he went to Iraq, and this is in the interest of one and all that it be thus. And that position is the position I will defend until the end.

Q: Mr. President, with what ...

BUSH: Which one?

Q: Both of you.

BUSH: Get moving, will you?

Q: Mr. President, with oil approaching $100 a barrel, are you concerned that your hard words for Iran on its nuclear program are helping drive up oil prices, which can end up hurting the U.S. economy?

BUSH: No. I believe oil prices are going up because the demand for oil outstrips the supply for oil. Oil is going up because developing countries still use a lot of oil. Oil is going up because we use too much oil. And the capacity to replace reserves is dwindling. That's why the price of oil is going up.

Now, I believe it is important for us to send clear signals to the Iranian government that the free world understands the risks of you trying to end up with a nuclear weapon. And therefore, we will work together to try to find if there's not rational people inside your government, who are tired of isolation and who believe there's a better way forward.

Every time I give a talk about Iran, I make sure I speak to the Iranian people. And I want them to hear once again that we discussed your country today, that we believe, that I believe that you've got a bright future, that we respect your history and respect your tradition.

However, you are governed by people who are making decisions that are isolating you from the rest of the world, and you can do better than that.

The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is dangerous, and, therefore, now is the time for us to work together to diplomatically solve this problem. We spent a lot of time on the subject. And I thank the French president for his resolve on solving this issue peacefully.

SARKOZY (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I just wanted to say that we exchange all the intelligence and information we had. It is unacceptable that Iran should have at any point a nuclear weapon. But Iran is entitled to the energy of the future, which is civilian nuclear energy.

I believe in the effectiveness of sanctions. I believe even in the need to toughen the sanctions. But in my mind, the two go together. In other words, the open, the outstretched hand of dialogue, of continuing discussions, because Iran deserves a better fate than that isolation.

And I cannot imagine that there are not people, leaders in Iran, who have stopped to think about the consequences of what is going on. This is a great people and a great civilization, and we must be firm for as long as there is no gesture on their part. And we have to keep the way of dialogue open, because we must do everything to avoid the worst-case scenario.

And this is indeed was the subject of a very lengthy conversation which showed exactly how convergent our views were.

QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): To the president: With respect to your statements on Afghanistan and France's commitment and engagement, does this mean that France is going to be sending additional ground troops in to fight in the southern regions of Afghanistan, as the U.S. wishes them to do?

How do you feel about the fact that France has been engaging Syria on the upcoming Lebanese presidential election?

Do you think that's a good idea?

And what are the chances that Lebanon will have a presidential election by November 24?

BUSH: Thanks. Good question. Want me to go first?

SARKOZY (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, on Afghanistan, I said what I thought, and what I think. We've talked about it with President Bush. We will not pull out of Afghanistan because what is at stake here is the solidity of our alliance.

And ultimately, what is at stake here is the fight against terror. We're thinking about the best way to help bring about a democratic Afghanistan.

Is it by stepping up our training efforts so that we lay the groundwork or the basis of a modern Afghan state, or is it by other means, maybe, perhaps, military means?

We're still thinking about it.

BUSH: First of all, you know, the Syrian influence in Lebanon was something the previous government and I worked on collaboratively.

And because France and the United States worked together, we passed 1551, a resolution of the United Nations which got Syria out of Lebanon, by and large.

And so, we spent time collaborating on how best to make sure that Syria doesn't influence the presidential elections, that, in fact, the presidency is picked by the Lebanese people.

And I'm very aware that Mr. Hariri and Nabih Berri are in consultations to whether or not they can come up with an acceptable candidate to them - not to Syria, whether or not the Lebanese people can be assured that their president is going to be representing the people of Lebanon, not the people - not the government of Syria.

And I'm comfortable with President Sarkozy's government sending clear messages that meet common objectives. And our common objective here is for this Lebanese democracy to survive, thrive and serve as an example for others.

We will work with France and with others to see that this process be completed by November 24th. We believe it's in the interests of the Middle East that this Lebanese democracy survive.

I want Lebanon to serve as an example for the Palestinians, to show them what's possible. I believe in a two-state solution. I believe there ought to be two states living side by side in peace. So does the president. We discussed that today.

There's nothing better for the Palestinians to see - what is possible with a stable democracy in Lebanon.

The interesting challenge we face in the world in which we live is there are murderers who will try to stop the advance of democracy, particularly in the Middle East. Isn't it interesting that the places where there's most violence is where there's young democracies trying to take hold, whether it be Iraq or Lebanon or in the Palestinian territories.

And the call for nations such as ourselves is to support those who want to live in freedom. Freedom is a great alternative to the ideology of people who murder the innocent to achieve their political objectives. By the way, the very same ones that came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

And so what I'm telling you is - let me end this press conference by telling you this. I have a partner in peace, somebody who has clear vision, basic values, who is willing to take tough positions to achieve peace.

So when you ask, am I comfortable with a Sarkozy government sending messages? You bet I'm comfortable.

Mr. President, thanks for coming. Appreciate you being here.

END

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7058876,00.html

Technorati - Freedom 911 Al Qaida Al Qaeda Al Qaida Bin Laden Islamofascism Islam Apes and pigs Terrorism Terrorist oganization Hamas 'palestinians' Al Aqsa Alaqsa Muslims Christians Jews Arabs bombing Infidels Israel US Security Jihad War on Terror Iraq Iran Mosque Foreign policy West non Muslims Sarkozy Democracy France Democracy Bush Afghanitsan Islamic Threat Nukes Taliban Islamists

Islamization, Londonistan // Britain’s Anti-Semitic Turn

Britain’s Anti-Semitic Turn
Melanie Phillips

A new manifestation of the oldest hatred demonizes the Jewish state.

In August 2006, as the war in Lebanon raged, a gang of teenage girls confronted 12-year-old Jasmine Kranat and a friend on a London bus. “Are you Jewish?” they demanded. They didn’t hurt the friend, who was wearing a crucifix. But they subjected Jasmine, a Jew, to a brutal beating—stomping on her head and chest, fracturing her eye socket, and knocking her unconscious.

According to the Community Security Trust, the defense organization of Britain’s 300,000-strong Jewish community, last year saw nearly 600 anti-Semitic assaults, incidents of vandalism, cases of abuse, and threats against Jewish individuals and institutions—double the 2001 number. According to the police, Jews are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than are Muslims. Every synagogue service and Jewish communal event now requires guards on the lookout for violence from both neo-Nazis and Muslim extremists. Orthodox Jews have become particular targets; some have begun wearing baseball caps instead of skullcaps and concealing their Star of David jewelry.

Anti-Semitism is rife within Britain’s Muslim community. Islamic bookshops sell copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the notorious czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; as an undercover TV documentary revealed in January, imams routinely preach anti-Jewish sermons. Opinion polls show that nearly two-fifths of Britain’s Muslims believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”; that more than half believe that British Jews have “too much influence over the direction of UK foreign policy”; and that no fewer than 46 percent think that the Jewish community is “in league with Freemasons to control the media and politics.”

But anti-Semitism has also become respectable in mainstream British society. “Anti-Jewish themes and remarks are gaining acceptability in some quarters in public and private discourse in Britain and there is a danger that this trend will become more and more mainstream,” reported a Parliamentary inquiry last year. “It is this phenomenon that has contributed to an atmosphere where Jews have become more anxious and more vulnerable to abuse and attack than at any other time for a generation or longer.”

At the heart of this ugly development is a new variety of anti-Semitism, aimed primarily not at the Jewish religion, and not at a purported Jewish race, but at the Jewish state. Zionism is now a dirty word in Britain, and opposition to Israel has become a fig leaf for a resurgence of the oldest hatred.

Anti-Semitism has continually changed its shape over the centuries. In the Greco-Roman world, it expressed itself in cultural hostility, resentment of the Jews’ economic power, and disdain for the separate lives that Jews led as the result of their religious practices, such as dietary laws and refusal to marry outside the faith.

Adding fuel to these pagan prejudices, Christian theology accused Jews of deicide and held them responsible for all time for killing Christ, a position that effectively associated them with the devil and, crucially, laid the blame for their suffering on their own shoulders. Later, medieval Christianity attempted to usurp the Jewish heritage through “replacement theology,” which claimed that Christians inherited all the promises that God had made to the Jews, who were to be eliminated through either conversion or death. These ideas underlay medieval Europe’s regular anti-Jewish pogroms, which consisted of massacres, forced conversions, and torchings of synagogues.

Theological anti-Semitism’s themes reemerged in the next mutation: racial anti-Semitism. This ideology held that, on account of their genetic inheritance, Jews were the enemies of humanity—a demonic conspiracy whose malign influence could be countered only by removing them from the face of the earth. Nazi Germany tried to do just that, killing 6 million Jews between 1933 and 1945.

And now, in Britain and elsewhere, anti-Semitism has mutated again, its target shifting from culture to creed to race to nation. What anti-Semitism once did to Jews as people, it now does to Jews as a people. First it wanted the Jewish religion, and then the Jews themselves, to disappear; now it wants the Jewish state to disappear. For the presentation of Israel in British public discourse does not consist of mere criticism. It has become a torrent of libels, distortions, and obsessional vilification, representing Israel not as a country under exterminatory attack by the Arabs for the 60 years of its existence but as a regional bully persecuting innocent Palestinians who want only a homeland.

Language straight out of the lexicon of medieval and Nazi Jew-hatred has become commonplace in acceptable British discourse, particularly in the media. Indeed, the most striking evidence that hatred of Israel is the latest mutation of anti-Semitism is that it resurrects the libel of the world Jewish conspiracy, a defining anti-Semitic motif that went underground after the Holocaust.

Take the much-abused term “neoconservatives,” which has become code for the Jews who have supposedly suborned America in Israel’s interests. In the Guardian, Geoffrey Wheatcroft lamented the fact that Conservative Party leader David Cameron had fallen under the spell of neoconservatives’ “ardent support for the Iraq war, for the US and for Israel,” and urged Cameron to ensure that British foreign policy was no longer based on the interest of “another country”—Israel. In the Times, Simon Jenkins supported the notion that “a small group of neo-conservatives contrived to take the greatest nation on Earth to war and kill thousands of people” and that these “traitors to the American conservative tradition,” whose “first commitment was to the defence of Israel,” had achieved a “seizure of Washington (and London) after 9/11.” According to this familiar thesis, the Jews covertly exercise their extraordinary power to advance their own interests and harm the rest of mankind.

The New Statesman took a more straightforward approach in 2002, printing an investigation into the power of the “Zionist” lobby in Britain, which it dubbed the “Kosher Conspiracy” and illustrated on its cover with a gold Star of David piercing the Union Jack. The image conveyed at a glance the message that rich Jews were stabbing British interests through the national heart.

The British media accuse Israel of a host of crimes. The Guardian published a two-day special report painting Israel as an apartheid state, ignoring the fact that Israeli Arabs have full civil rights. Another Guardian article, by Patrick Seale, portrayed Israel’s incursions into Gaza as a “destructive rampage.” Dismissing or ignoring the rocket attacks, hostage-taking, and terrorism that those incursions were trying to stop, Seale concluded instead that Israel “deliberately inflicts inhumane hardships on the Palestinians in order to radicalise them and drive the moderates from the scene.” When the National Union of Journalists, joining a number of other academic and professional groups, voted last April to boycott Israeli goods—a move that it has since reversed—one of its members, freelancer Pamela Hardyment, described Israel as “a wonderful Nazi-like killing machine backed by the world’s richest Jews.” Then she referred to the “so-called Holocaust” and concluded: “Shame on all Jews, may your lives be cursed.”

The British media uncritically regurgitate Palestinian propaganda even when it is demonstrably false. In April 2002, many outlets labeled Israel’s assault on the refugee camp in Jenin a “massacre” with thousands dead; in fact, some 52 Palestinian men had died (of whom the great majority were terrorists), along with 23 Israeli soldiers. In last year’s Lebanon war, the media propagated manifestly false Hezbollah claims of Israeli massacres that later proved to have been staged.

During the same war, the Guardian published a cartoon depicting a huge fist, armed with brass knuckles shaped like Stars of David, hammering a bloody child while a wasp representing Hezbollah buzzed around ineffectually. The image suggested that Israel was a gigantic oppressor, slaughtering children in brutal overreaction to Hezbollah, a minor irritant. It was reminiscent of an earlier cartoon in the Independent that showed a monstrous Ariel Sharon biting the head off a Palestinian baby, which won first prize in the British Political Cartoon Society’s annual competition for 2003. By showing Jews killing children, both cartoons employed the imagery of the blood libel—the medieval European calumny that sparked many massacres of Jews by claiming that they murdered Gentile children and used their blood for religious rituals.

The BBC, despite its claims of fairness and honesty, is just as marked by hatred of Israel, and much more influential. It reported the Lebanon war by focusing almost entirely on the Israeli assault upon Lebanon, with scarcely a nod at the Hezbollah rocket barrage against Israel. Its reporters blame Israel even for Palestinians’ killing of other Palestinians. Last December, in a briefing for other BBC staff, Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen wrote of the incipient Palestinian civil war in Gaza: “The reason is the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel’s military activities, land expropriation and settlement building—and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government.”

Some media websites publish readers’ anti-Semitic comments. On the Guardian’s Comment Is Free blog—which does try to remove some of the more offensive remarks—one reader wrote: “Because of their religious teachings whenever Jews have had power they have used it to persecute non-Jews—from the extermination of Amalek to the killing of Christian converts, to the oppression of medieval peasantry in Poland to the Palestinians today.” A message board on BBC Radio Five Live’s website published a reader’s remark that “Zionism is a racist ideology where jews [sic] are given supremacy over all other races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud.” Though the site reserves the right not to post messages that are “racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable,” it refused to remove that posting, which apparently “did not contravene the house rules.”

Another force propagating the new anti-Semitism is the institution at the heart of the old theological version: the Church, which has reverted to blaming Jews for their own suffering and accusing them once again of a diabolical conspiracy against the innocent. Although Britain is in many ways a postreligious society, it still sees the churches as custodians of high-minded conscience and truth. And those churches are viscerally prejudiced against Israel.

The Church of England is especially unfriendly; one might say that it is the Guardian at prayer. In a lecture in 2001, the archbishop of Canterbury’s representative in the Middle East, Canon Andrew White, observed with concern that propaganda accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing and of systematically “Judaising” Jerusalem had assumed great authority within the Church of England. The Church, he said, was undergoing not just a spell of Israel-hatred but also a revival of theological anti-Semitism.

One major influence here is radical Palestinian Christian theology, such as that of Canon Naim Ateek, which revives the imagery of Christ-killing in order to claim that the Palestinians are the rightful inheritors of God’s promise of the Land of Israel. Another is the prominent Reverend Stephen Sizer, who has said that Israel is fundamentally an apartheid state, that he hopes that it will be “brought to an end,” and that Christianity has inherited God’s promises to the Jews. Sizer agrees with another leading Anglican, Reverend Dr. John Stott, that the idea that Jews still have a special relationship with God is “biblically anathema.” And Colin Chapman’s book Whose Promised Land?—hugely influential within the Church—likewise says that God’s promises to the Jews now pertain to the Christians, adding that violence has always been implicit in Zionism and that Jewish self-determination is somehow racist.

Small wonder, then, that Christian aid societies regularly represent Israel as a malevolent occupying power, distorting Jews’ historical claims to the land and making scant reference to the sustained campaign of Arab terrorism against them. A 2005 report by the Anglican Peace and Justice Network—which underpinned a short-lived move to “divest” from companies supporting Israel—compared Israel’s security barrier with “the barbed-wire fence of the Buchenwald camp.” Jews were apparently like Nazis—and because of a measure aimed at preventing a second Jewish Holocaust. Last Christmas, several Anglican and Catholic churches replaced their traditional nativity tableaux with montages of Israel’s security barrier, carrying the unmistakable message that the Palestinians were the modern version of the suffering Christ being crucified all over again by the Jews. And earlier this year, the Catholic weekly The Tablet revealed that almost 80 percent of British Christians polled did not believe that Israel was fighting enemies that were pledged to destroy it.

Like the media and the churches, Britain’s political and academic Left is making common cause with Islamist radicalism. The Islamists oppose the Left’s most deeply held causes, such as gay rights and equality for women. Yet leftists and Islamists now march together under such slogans as “We are all Hezbollah now” during rallies protesting the Lebanon war, and even “Death to the Jews” outside a debate over whether Manchester University’s Jewish Society should be banned.

In 2005, London’s far-left mayor, Ken Livingstone, illustrated this unholy alliance by publicly embracing Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the cleric who endorses suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq. In the same year, he asked a Jewish reporter who approached him after a party, “What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?” When the reporter said that he was Jewish and that the remark offended him, Livingstone likened him to a “concentration camp guard.” After a government panel found that Livingstone had brought his office into disrepute, the mayor challenged the finding in court, where a judge ruled that his remarks were not anti-Semitic. But the Community Security Trust found that a number of perpetrators of anti-Semitic attacks mentioned those comments. And John Mann, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism, was in no doubt: “If you have people like the Mayor of London crossing the line . . . then it gives a message out to the rest of the community. That is why antisemitism is on the rise again—because it’s become acceptable.”

Livingstone is not the only leftist politician “crossing the line.” In 2003, Labour backbencher Tam Dalyell claimed that Tony Blair was “being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers.” Liberal Democrat Jenny Tonge, whose party honored her with a peerage after she sympathized with suicide bombers and compared Arabs in Gaza with Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, told her party conference in 2006: “The pro-Israel lobby has got its grips on the Western world. I think they’ve probably got a certain grip on our party.”

Even a distinguished general told me, without a shred of evidence, that Rupert Murdoch had ordered the Times, which he owns, to limit its opposition to the Iraq War “on the instruction of the Jewish lobby in America.” Furthermore, claimed the general, George Bush had invaded Iraq because “he had Ariel Sharon’s hand up his back.” Moreover, a number of institutions and professional groups have tried to launch boycotts of Israel: academics, journalists, architects, doctors, public-sector unions, and again the Church of England. Many of these have not succeeded, but they have served to remind the public that Israel is a pariah.

Given these views, widespread in the media and among political and intellectual elites, it’s no surprise that many Britons believe that global Islamic terrorism is the result of Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians—or that hatred of both the Jewish state and Jews in general has become increasingly acceptable among the population. As a woman said to me conversationally at dinner one evening: “I hate the Jews because of what they do to the Palestinians.” So acceptable has the new anti-Semitism become that many left-wing Jews promulgate the idea that Israel is a racist or apartheid state, demonize those Jews who seek to defend it against slander, and claim that because they are Jews themselves, their words cannot be anti-Semitic—despite the fact that throughout history there have been Jews who have turned on their coreligionists.

One of the most conspicuous features of British anti-Semitism is that the British deny its existence. The Parliamentary inquiry received only a muted response. Both Mann and Richard Littlejohn, a journalist whose TV program on the subject aired in July 2007, encountered people who, when discovering their concern about anti-Semitism, said: “Oh, I didn’t know you were Jewish.” But Mann and Littlejohn aren’t Jewish. As Littlejohn noted, the implication was that no non-Jew would ever identify anti-Semitism, and therefore that anti-Semitism was generally a figment of the Jewish imagination. When I proposed to write a book about it, I was turned down by every mainstream publishing house. “No British publisher will touch this,” one editorial director told me. “Claiming there is anti-Semitism in Britain is simply unsayable.”

Many Britons deny the resurgence of anti-Semitism because they think of it as prejudice toward Jews as people and believe that it died with Hitler. The argument that attitudes toward Israel may be anti-Semitic strikes them as absurd. But consider the characteristics of anti-Semitism. It applies to the Jews expectations applied to no other people; it libels, vilifies, demonizes, and dehumanizes them; it scapegoats them not merely for crimes that they have not committed, but for crimes of which they are the victims; it holds them responsible for all the ills of the world. These characteristics remain precisely the same in today’s hatred of the Jewish state. Israel is held to standards expected of no other nation; it is libeled and vilified; it is blamed both for crimes that it has not committed and for those of which it is the victim; and it is held responsible for all the world’s misfortunes—most recently, Islamic terrorism.

So the Israel boycotts that have broken out in Britain are intrinsically anti-Semitic. The boycotters do not seek to cut ties with any other country, however tyrannical or murderous. They blame no other country for populations that have been displaced through war or other upheavals. And they expect no other nation that has held off its mortal enemies to defer to those aggressors and accede to their demands.

Britons also tend to suspect that Jews use the charge of anti-Semitism to divert attention from Israel’s crimes. This is why, for so many in Britain, the suggestion that anti-Semitism is enjoying a renaissance seems not only false but sinister. Outraged to be accused of peddling bigotry, they begin to hate those who level that charge—who, they conclude, are part of a conspiracy against truth.

Thus Jews who seek to defend Israel find themselves in a trap. By complaining that attacks on Israel are anti-Semitic, they become examples of the supposed Jewish tendency to play the anti-Semitism card to suppress legitimate debate—and provoke yet more of the very prejudice that they are trying to combat. Such Jews find themselves in a situation that Kafka could have scripted. The Economist hosted a 2004 debate in London proposing that “the enemies of antisemitism are the new McCarthyites” because they were trying to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel. And at that debate, a former Conservative higher-education minister and a member of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding stated that any British Jew who supported Israel’s policies was guilty of “dual loyalty.” I myself, on the BBC’s Question Time in 2001, was accused of dual loyalty for the same reason.

Insofar as Britons are forced to acknowledge a rise in anti-Semitism, they assume that Jews have brought it on themselves because of Israel’s behavior. There is certainly a link: whenever Middle East violence surges, as in the 2006 Lebanon war or at the height of the second intifada, physical attacks on British Jews surge, too. Since violence in the Middle East invariably consists of attacks on Israel to which it is forced to respond, the appalling conclusion is that the more Jews are murdered in Israel, the more Jews are attacked in Britain.

Not all Britons who oppose Israel are anti-Semites, of course. Many are decent people who hate prejudice. Indeed, that is why they hate Israel—because they have been taught that it is like apartheid-era South Africa. Profoundly ignorant of the history of the Jewish people and of the Middle East, they have been indoctrinated with one of the Big Lies of human history. And it is because of their very high-mindedness that the better educated and more socially progressive they are, the more likely they are to spew Jew-hatred.

But why has this poison seeped into the British bloodstream? Why has the country that was once the cradle of the Enlightenment values of tolerance, objectivity, and reason departed so precipitately from its own tradition?

For one thing, Britain has always had an ambivalent relationship with the Jews. Medieval England actually led the European charge against them. The blood libel is thought to have originated in twelfth-century England; and in 1290, after numerous pogroms against its Jewish citizens, it expelled them altogether. It was not until 1656 that, for a variety of economic and religious reasons, Oliver Cromwell allowed Jews to return to England. Though they subsequently flourished there, a measure of social anti-Semitism persisted until the Holocaust.

Britain’s role in the creation of modern Israel is also a factor in British antagonism toward the Jewish state. In the early 1920s, the League of Nations entrusted Britain with the administration of Palestine, holding it responsible for “placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home.” For almost three decades, the British tried to evade that obligation in order to appease the Arabs. The Jews of Palestine thus found themselves fighting the British as well as the Arabs, a fact that caused lasting resentment in Britain. Public opinion recalls with undimmed bitterness the Jewish terrorism of that period, such as the 1946 destruction of the British headquarters at Jerusalem’s King David hotel. Arabism is still the default position at the Foreign Office, where sympathetic diplomats are dubbed “the camel corps.”

But a subtler reason exists for Britain’s embrace of the new anti-Semitism. After the Second World War, the radical Left set out to destroy the fundamentals of Western morality, but its campaign played out very differently in America and Britain. In America, it resulted in the culture wars, with conservatives, many churches, and sensible liberals launching a vigorous counterattack in defense of Western moral values—and, as it happened, Israel.

Exhausted by two world wars, shattered by the loss of empire, and hollowed out by the failure of the Church of England or a substantial body of intellectuals and elites to hold the line, Britain was uniquely vulnerable to the predations of the Left. The institutions that underpinned truth and morality—the traditional family and an education system that transmitted the national culture—collapsed. Britain’s monolithic intelligentsia soon embraced postmodernism, multiculturalism, victim culture, and a morally inverted hegemony of ideas in which the values of marginalized or transgressive groups replaced the values of the purportedly racist, oppressive West.

Further, people across the political spectrum became increasingly unable to make moral distinctions based on behavior. This erasing of the line between right and wrong produced a tendency to equate, and then invert, the roles of terrorists and of their victims, and to regard self-defense as aggression and the original violence as understandable and even justified. That attitude is, of course, inherently antagonistic to Israel, which was founded on the determination never to allow another genocide of Jews, to defend itself when attacked, and to destroy those who would destroy it. But for the Left, powerlessness is virtue; better for Jews to die than to kill, because only as dead victims can they be moral.

And this general endorsement of surrender feeds straight into a subterranean but potent resentment simmering in Europe. For over 60 years, a major tendency in European thought has sought to distance itself from moral responsibility for the Holocaust. The only way to do so, however, was somehow to blame the Jews for their own destruction; and that monstrous reasoning was inconceivable while the dominant narrative was of Jews as victims.

Now, however, the Palestinians have handed Europe a rival narrative. The misrepresentation of Israeli self-defense as belligerence, suggesting that Jews are not victims but aggressors, implicitly provides Europeans with the means to blame the destruction of European Jewry on its own misdeeds. As one influential left-wing editor said to me: “The Holocaust meant that for decades the Jews were untouchable. It’s such a relief that Israel means we don’t have to worry about that any more.”

It is no accident that Jews find themselves at the center of Britain’s modern convulsion. Today’s British prejudices rest on a repudiation of truth and a refusal to defend Western moral values. And it was the Jews who first gave the West those moral codes that underpin its civilization and that are now under siege.

If British politicians were to start speaking the truth about Israel’s history and defending Jews publicly, they might help stem the new anti-Semitism. Likewise, British Jews—who, unlike their American counterparts, are almost totally silent for fear of making things worse—need to put their heads above the parapet and start telling the truth about Israel. But for Jews who had allowed themselves to believe that they were truly at home in Britain, the new anti-Semitism is the end of an idyll.

Melanie Phillips, a British writer, is a commentator for the Daily Mail and the author of Londonistan. She blogs at www.melaniephillips.com.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anti-semitism.html

Technorati - Freedom 911 Al Qaida Al Qaeda Al Qaida Bin Laden Islamofascism Islam Apes and pigs Terrorism Terrorist oganization Hamas 'palestinians' Al Aqsa Alaqsa Muslims Christians Jews Arabs bombing Infidels Israel US Security Jihad

War on Terror Iraq Iran Mosque Media bias West non Muslims Londonistan Eurabia UK Islamic Hatred Islamic Threat Jews Anti Semitism Islamists