UK Muslims systematically supporting anti-Israel candidates in British election campaign
With the British general elections less than 10 days away, a fascinating piece in today’s Guardian emphasises the growing importance of Muslim voters in shifting the terms of debate in Britain further against the State of Israel. The writer, Anas Altikriti — a prominent British Muslim academic — proudly talks of the “pivotal importance” of foreign policy for Muslim voters with Palestine (and Afghanistan) taking pride of place.
“On the basis of these concerns,” says Altikriti, “lists of recommended candidates include names from most parties, major and small (Lib Dems, Labour, Tory and Green candidates).”
One list drawn up by the British Muslim Initiative recommends and endorses candidates in 52 constituencies. Most are well known for their virulent hostility to Israel. Almost all are Labour or Liberal Democrat though there is a smattering of Conservatives as well as members of the Respect Party which is headed by the Israel-hating far-Left politician/activist George Galloway.
Altikriti is quite open in stressing the significance of the Palestinian issue in voter motivation among British Muslims:
“Mirroring the national trend, the Muslim community seems to be moving in favour of a greater share of the vote for the Liberal Democrats within a hung parliament scenario. The overall view is that the Lib Dems have made the better pronouncements when it comes to Palestine and Iraq, albeit to a lesser extent on Afghanistan (in direct opposition to the pro-Israel lobby). This was echoed by the pro-Palestinian London based Middle East Monitor (Link) which is a main reference point for British Muslims on the Palestinian issue.”
One of those “better pronouncements when it comes to Palestine” was of course made recently by Liberal Democrat peer Jenny Tonge who argued that Israel should investigate claims that its medical teams in Haiti were extracting human organs from dead Haitians to sell on the international black market. Tonge was reprimanded for her remarks but not expelled from the party. Many members of the Liberal Democrat Party have leaped to her defence over her remarks. The Liberal Democrats are possibly the most anti-Israeli of all the three main parties and will probably emerge as kingmakers after the votes are counted.
Muslims make up around five percent of the UK population, though higher than average birth rates and continued immigration mean that that figure is likely to surge in the coming years and decades. But Muslim influence is a reality in the here and now. As the author himself says:
“Whatever the outcome of the election… Muslims around the country are likely to play a significant role in influencing the outcome of dozens of seats.” Very much the shape of things to come in modern Europe. Watch this space…
Tags: Israel
April 27th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Yes Robin, it’s all very depressing. Clegg makes big play of his party’s opposition to the war in Iraq. They would have preferred Saddam Hussein and his sons to have stayed in power. For liberals, that’s clearly better than a US imposed democracy.
Interestingly the gentleman quoted above, Anas Altikriti, has an Iraqi surname. His family will have come from Tikrit, the hometown of Saddam Hussein. Nice one. Altikriti joined the Respect Party in 2004 and stood very unsuccessfully as one of their candidates in European elections.
April 27th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
The Lib-Dems hold my constituency at the moment and are traditionally well-supported here in Cornwall.
Reading this article has helped me decide how to cast my vote-and it won’t be for them.
Jenny Tonge’s remarks were disgraceful and ridculous. Did she accuse any of the other rescue teams in Haiti of illicit organ harvesting?
The blood libel accusations are making an ugly reappearance.
The future of our liberal democracy seems increasingly uncertain : voter apathy combined with realpolitik’s cultivation of the Moslem vote.
Israel’s future won’t count for much in the minds of many voters, whereas Respect and its well-organised supporters will be making the most of growing Islamic influence.
April 27th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Is there any way for friends of Israel to conduct asymmetric political warfare in Britain?
April 27th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
As a foreigner looking in from the outside all I can say is that this is simply disgusting. I’m glad – and I really mean it – that I’m not British and not a citizen of that country. Hungary IS better. Falf-fascist? Yes (or even that one is disputable as actually more than half of the supporters of the neo-fascist “Jobbik” are tactical desperate voters). But Hungary is free of that sort of utterly nauseating ploy, weasel words, calculation on the backs of ethnic/religious groups insigated by the main parties here. In Hungary they are at least honest. Honest in vigorously supporting democracy, human rights and moderate center-left and green values (as shown by our latest liberal-left party “Politics can be different” Party that reached 7.4 %) or honest in oppsing it. You know where you stand. Our liberals are free of hypocrisy, covert antisemitism oused by various leftist elements, be they LibDem or “Green” in the UK (The BMI for example is supporting EMP Caroline Lucas in Brighton. On what grounds exactly?). Meanwhile I have no doubts that this is what they’d do here if the circumstances were similar. But of course they aren’t.
In brief: the situation in Britain is morally more and more untenable. The political elite is morally bankrupt. And this projects an appalling image of the country to anyone who cares to analyze it.
April 27th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I’m afraid the UK is only a few years away from either an open pogrom or legal expulsion of all Jews. It will start slowly, with loyalty oaths, prohibition on travel to or from Israel or occupied Palestine or whatever they call it. Then Kashrut will be outlawed, Shabbat will be outlawed and school attendance for Jews will be barred. And so on. Then the government will feign shock at the deplorable treatment of Jews, etc etc and offer them a one-time only exit visa to wherever (anywhere but occupied al Quds of course). They will leave for Canada, the US and Australia, half will make it to Israel.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:09 am
It’s simple maths. The Muslim population is increasing rapidly, and as it does, it’s going to get worse and worse for the Jews (and ultimately everyone else). No politician is going to confront the widespread antisemitism within the Mulim community – in fact, they pretend it doesn’t exist. It will soon be time to leave.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:32 am
To wendy: I read somewhere that a couple of decades ago it would have been unimaginable to have Cornwall’s traditional black white-cross flag hung from various places as the identity bearer of the Cornish as opposed to now. This is just one more piece of evidence that the UK is falling apart slowly, no? Where is this route leading to? (And, sorry if I am non-PC here, but the broad masses of the anti-English types – virtually anybody, be they Welsh, Scottish, Catholic N Irish or Cornish – habitually imagine themselves “Palestinian” while the English are the “Israelis” – of course everything is the hidden function of their innate loathing of England and their massive insecurities. Perhaps they are not even antisemites but two-bit pathetic simpletons. It would be totally ridiculous were it not so grave!)
April 28th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Empress Trudy: I think you are being a touch hysterical. The danger is not to British Jews, and especially not to Jewish religious customs. The UK is highly respectful, too much so in my opinion, of religion, anybody’s religion. It does, however, see Israel as separate from its own Jewish population. There is a real danger to Israel from the hostility of Western governments and their pandering to growing Muslim populations. Israel does a bad job of stating its case and Israel’s supporters need to make themselves heard. It is worth writing, for example, if only for the satisfaction, to the Lib Dems to say what one thinks of them.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:00 am
I think it will be important to monitor the effect of such recommendations made by the BMI and whether there is a correlation with what has been said and what actually happens in May. If these candidates are elected (and some will of course be elected), it will be of further importance as to where these MPs are placed within the Parties’ structure and what influence they will have on the formulation of future policy in this country.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:07 am
I’m not sure if Empress Judy has it 100% right, but the writing is on the wall and it would be foolish to ignore the signs.
I, and many other UK Jews have lots of reasons to be grateful to the UK for taking in our grandparents and giving them and us safe and secure lives in a comfortable and benign environment, where many have flourished and done well. The golden age of UK Jewry does look to be under threat now, and bearing in mind the 1930′s in Germany, UK Jews really do need to watch what’s happening, politically, socially and economically.
No-one ever thought that German Jewry could possibly come under the unimagined and appalling laws and hatred that the Nazis instigated. Now today, here in the UK and elsewhere, aggressive Islamism is looking to force its way to the front of the political pack and just as the Nazis, is using Jews first as their focus of all that’s wrong with the world. As with the Nazis, it won’t stop with the Jews, but unless the UK, the EU and the rest of the world wake up to what’s happening, the liberal left will suddenly find themselves having backed people who will repay their friendship with cynicism and barbarity.
We all need to keep our eyes open – we Jews will just be the first in a list of proscribed people whom radical Islamism deems unacceptable.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
In days to come, the second half of the 20th century will be looked upon as a Golden Age for diaspora Jewry in Britain. The first half of the 21st will be looked upon as a second exodus, when Britain became increasingly infected by anti-semitism and Islamocreep, and the Jewish population emigrated to more tolerant and less Islamized countries.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
I’m inclined to agree with those who feel that this second sojourn by the Jews in these islands is coming to an end. It’s a matter of two things: Israeli survival and the growth of Britain’s Muslim population. The longer these two continue, the more oppressive it will become for Jews here. The only hope is that Muslims develop a truly moderate and reformist voice.
All the more reason, by the way, for Israel not to relinquish control over Judea and Samaria. With Islam spreading across the West, where else are British (and European) Jews going to go?
April 29th, 2010 at 11:28 am
well I am sorry guys. Unconditional support for the Israeli regime was always going to be a source of increased anti semitism. The only reason it is not far worse than it is now is because the Zionist media have been able to shape public opinion by hiding much of the reality on the ground in Palestine.
If the Zionist lobbies in the UK supported Israel only if it complied with the international consensus and international law, and didn’t commit such gross heinous crimes then Britain would be a much more harmonious place.
The Jewish community needs to distance itself from the right wing Zionists who support Israel unconditional and in the face of its international obligations
April 29th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I’m appalled by the defeatism expressed on this page.
April 29th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
an lusan:
Uncritical support is witnessed far more commonly on the “pro-Palestinian” side than on the pro-Israel side.
As for hiding “reality on the ground in Palestine”, in truth it is Fatah and Hamas who rigorously suppress a free media in territories under their governance and foreign media are complicit in this.
Heinous crimes — again, you not of what you speak. A recent article in The New Republic has blown away the veil over HRW’s reportage on Israel:
http://www.tnr.com/article/minority-report-2
[...]
“Indeed, despite the tremendous amount of goodwill inside the organization toward [Robert] Bernstein* personally, he and his allies—who also included Edith Everett, a member of both the MENA advisory committee and the HRW board, a former stockbroker, and a philanthropist who has donated millions to aid Druze Arabs in Israel—eventually came to believe that their concerns were falling on deaf ears. For Everett, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war was a turning point. “Participating on the board became most difficult since [that war],” she recalls. While Everett agreed with some of HRW’s critiques—on Israel’s use of cluster munitions, for example—she took issue with many of the organization’s conclusions, including its reporting on human shield use in Lebanon. (In a 2007 report, HRW insisted that Hezbollah fighters did not shield themselves and their weapons among the local civilian population on a widespread basis.) For a long time, Everett had felt there was a healthy exchange about these issues inside HRW, but that had begun to change. “I felt in recent times there was less of a dialogue,” she says. “It seemed to me that there was a commitment to a point of view—that Israel’s the bad guy here.”
During the third week of the five-week war, the organization published a report on “Israel’s indiscriminate attacks against civilians. (A report on Hezbollah rocket fire would not come out for another year, although, again, HRW did issue press releases on the subject in the interim.) The report said there was evidence suggesting that, in some cases, “Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians.” Critics, such as Alan Dershowitz and Bar-Ilan University Professor Avi Bell, jumped on the report and related documents, arguing that some of their assertions were highly questionable. HRW ceded no ground, accusing Dershowitz and Bell of “armchair obfuscations.” But, when it issued its more comprehensive report on Lebanese fatalities a year later, the organization admitted that the first report had indeed gotten key facts wrong. For example, an Israeli strike in the village of Srifa—the second-deadliest attack described in the first report—turned out to have killed not “an estimated 26 civilians” (as HRW had originally claimed) or “as many as 42 civilians” (as Roth later wrote), but 17 combatants and five civilians. “[E]yewitnesses were not always forthcoming about the identity of those that died, and in the case of Srifa, misled our researchers,” HRW wrote. Elsewhere in the new report, HRW acknowledged that the original had missed mitigating factors that cast some Israeli strikes in a different light. (There were also dozens of discrepancies between the two reports regarding names, ages, the timing of attacks, and other factual details.)”
* HRW’s founder
[...]
“As Bernstein and his allies saw it, Whitson and others in MENA consistently ignored the context of Israeli actions—context that might have created a more accurate picture. That was the overriding complaint in a letter Edith Everett wrote to HRW in June 2008, outlining her dissatisfaction with the way the organization was treating Israel. HRW had repeatedly called for Israel to lift its blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Everett pointed out that “the original contravention of human rights lies with Hamas and these terrorist organizations and if they were to stop their unprovoked attacks on Israeli civilians there would be no restrictions on the flow of goods into Gaza.”
[...]
“Bernstein also raised some of his concerns with then-HRW board member Richard Goldstone, who would go on to write the U.N.’s much-maligned report on the Gaza war. There are few more reviled figures in Israel right now than Goldstone, but even he sympathized with Bernstein on certain points, such as the politicized nature of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which, after being created in 2006, had directed its first nine condemnations at Israel. In March 2008, barely a year before he accepted UNHRC’s mandate to investigate the Gaza war, he told Bernstein that he thought the body’s performance had been hopeless and expressed ambivalence as to whether HRW should continue appearing before it. He also agreed with Bernstein that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s increasingly aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric, in combination with his threatening policies, was an issue worthy of HRW’s attention. Goldstone pushed Roth to address it, but to no avail.”
[...]
“Shortly thereafter, Edith Everett was gone. At a MENA advisory committee meeting in March 2009, two months after the war in Gaza, she raised the subject of human shields with HRW senior military analyst Marc Garlasco, who was on hand to discuss the issues he and his fellow researchers were planning to write about: “I said, ‘I hope when you talk about the Palestinians in Gaza that you speak about their use of the population as human shields,’ and he was beginning to respond to that when Sarah Leah Whitson wouldn’t let him speak. She just put an end to that conversation. She said, ‘Well, in summation, I think we have to move on,’ or something, and I said, ‘This is ridiculous,’ you know?” Everett immediately tendered her resignation from both the HRW board and the MENA advisory committee.”
[...]
“During the war, Garlasco had gotten a lot of attention for discussing Israel’s use of a chemical agent called white phosphorous. CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera ran segments featuring Garlasco explaining the dangers white phosphorous posed to civilians: On contact with skin, it could cause second- and third-degree burns; it could even burn down houses. Soon, news reports all around the world were repeating the story.
But Garlasco would later tell Apkon and others that he thought the white phosphorous controversy had been blown out of proportion. From his experience at the Pentagon, Garlasco knew that U.S. and British forces had used white phosphorous in Iraq and Afghanistan, and usually for the same purpose that the IDF used it in Gaza: as a smokescreen to obscure troop movements on the ground—a permissible use under international law. To be sure, Garlasco did not believe that the IDF had used white phosphorous properly in every instance. But he told multiple people that he thought HRW had placed too much emphasis on this issue—specifically telling one person that he had been pushed by HRW headquarters to focus on white phosphorous at the expense of topics he thought more deserving of attention because, he suspected, it was regarded as a headline-generating story. (HRW denies that it pushed Garlasco on the subject.) What’s more, while making legal judgments was not within Garlasco’s jurisdiction, he told Apkon that he did not think Israel’s use of white phosphorous amounted to a war crime. (In a subsequent report on white phosphorous, the first of six thus far on the Gaza war, HRW would say that evidence “indicates the commission of war crimes.”)
Beyond these disagreements, Garlasco had larger critiques of HRW. He thought that the organization had a habit of ignoring necessary context when covering war, he told Apkon; and he told multiple sources that he thought Whitson and others at MENA had far-left political views. As someone who didn’t have strong ideological commitments of his own on the Middle East, this bothered him. “When he reported on Georgia, his firm feeling was he could report whatever he wanted,” says one source close to Garlasco. “And, when he was talking to headquarters, the feeling was, let the chips fall where they may. He did not feel that way dealing with the Middle East division.” In addition, Garlasco alleged in conversations with multiple people that HRW officials in New York did not understand how fighting actually looked from the ground and that they had unrealistic expectations for how wars could be fought. To Garlasco, the reality of war was far more complicated. “He looks at that organization as one big attempt to outlaw warfare,” says the person close to Garlasco. Around the time he had coffee with Apkon last February, he was beginning to look for another job.”
April 29th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Shlomo USA says: ‘I’m appalled by the defeatism expressed on this page.’ Me too. And also by the suggestion from an lusan, who clearly does not know his or her history, that Jews need to distance themselves from so-called ‘right-wing’ Zionists. What kind of a lobby are we anyway? Enough of keeping our heads down and pretending we don’t exist. Israel has been fighting a 60-year battle to defend its existence, and receives nothing but vilification and delegitimisation. If Jews, who know how important it is that Israel should survive, don’t stand up for her, who will (apart from a few stars like Robin Shepherd)? Cityca, my parents, not grandparents, were taken in by this country as refugees and I’m distraught at the new wave of antisemitism. All the more reason not to allow ourselves to be intimidated. As for the growing Muslim population, one can hope that in time attitudes will change (and even at the BBC).
April 29th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
an lusan, our ignorant anti-Semitic troll is why the UK is not a pleasant place. an lusan you share your anti-Zionism with neo-Nazis and Hamas and all Muslim fanatics the world over.
Shlomo it isn’t defeatism, it’s realism. Not something most American Jews would know anything about, since 78% of you voted for an anti-Israel president. Not all of us live in a parallel reality.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
an lusan
Your comment is a tired and textbook example of the kind of bias and self-exculpatory hatred that Jews have routinely to deal with today. Allow me to deconstruct it for you.
(1) “Unconditional support for the Israeli regime was always going to be a source of increased anti Semitism”
(a) “Unconditional support”. I wonder, have you ever met a Jew? Do you know anything about them? I fancy not, otherwise you would know that there is no people on earth more disputatious and more self-critical where ethical issues are at stake.
To claim, therefore, that Jews in Britain support every policy of every Israeli government is pure fantasy. What most Jews do unconditionally support, on the other hand, is the right of the Jewish People to a homeland in what, since 1948, has been Israel. In other words, Jews here support the right of the Jewish People to their own state in exactly the same way as Italians, French, Germans and every other people unconditionally support the right of their fellows to their own country.
What do you find wrong with that?
(b) “regime”. I’m sorry, if you don’t know much about Jews, you don’t seem to know much about the form of government found in Israel. Like Britain, Israel is a democracy where every citizen, Jew, Christian and Muslim, believer and non-believer, has the right to vote. Israel’s government, therefore, is not a “regime”, because it can change with each election – just as ours can here. Or would you call Britain’s government a “regime”?
(c) “always going to be a source of increased anti Semitism”. When China’s brutal repression in Tibet and elsewhere is exposed is it “always going to be a source” of increased hatred of ethnic Chinese living in Britain? When Saddam was killing Kurdish people was that “always going to be a source” of violence against Iraqis here? Why, therefore, only in the case of the Jews is it “always going to be a source” of attacks when the Jewish state follows policies you don’t like?
Don’t you mean rather that antisemites, people who have an a priori hatred for Jews, are always going to take anything as an excuse to vent that hatred, just as you’re doing now?
(2) “The only reason it is not far worse than it is now is because the Zionist media have been able to shape public opinion by hiding much of the reality on the ground in Palestine”
Well, here we are deep into antisemitic territory, and you have just proclaimed yourself to readers of this blog as a certifiable bigot. Permit me to explain.
There is no “Zionist media” in Britain, and asserting that there is buys into one of the staples of antisemitism: that Jews are an international conspiracy secretly controlling governments and the media.
No, I assure you, there isn’t. And, as far as any media “hiding much of the reality on the ground in Palestine” is concerned, I’m afraid the sad truth is that hardly a day passes without Israel being in the news, and every story, directly or implicitly, makes the same case that Israel is a rogue state oppressing the Palestinians.
If you don’t believe me and still cling on to your offensive slurs, just try and think of a single instance or a single story you’ve read or heard that has reflected well on Israel. I challenge you to give me an example of one. And if you can’t, what does that say about your view of a “Zionist media” shaping public opinion?
(3) “If the Zionist lobbies in the UK supported Israel only if it complied with the international consensus and international law, and didn’t commit such gross heinous crimes then Britain would be a much more harmonious place.”
No, sorry, once again you’ve got it the wrong way round. Allow me to rephrase it for you:
“If the Arab and Muslim world and people in the UK supported the Palestinians only when they comply with the international consensus and international law and accepted the right of the Jews to live in their own state in Israel and didn’t commit such gross heinous crimes as they have been committing from day one of Israel’s existence then the Middle East would be a much more harmonious place and everyone would live in peace.
I think that has a much more truthful ring to it, don’t you?
April 29th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
an lusan, what a horrible post. You are, in effect, saying that the Jews bring it on themselves.
And it’s not a “regime” – it’s a democratic government, and Israel has a free press and independent judiciary as well – somethig sadly lacking in all its neighbours. Language matters.
Do Israel’s neighbours adhere to international law? Where is your outcry?
That’s called hypocrisy.
April 30th, 2010 at 2:38 am
Poor Britian.
“Cry the beloved country” – a country which did so much originally for Israel, which sacrificed so much in WW II, falling into the hands of xenophobic religious fanatics who sole interest is the destruction of Israel rather than building a better live for themselves. Britain is at risk of becoming like all the other failed Moslem countries.
April 30th, 2010 at 7:29 am
Israel has its problems but the whole situation is being systematically misrepresented by anti Israel interests that later use the Moslem demonstrations to “validate” their lies. I know it sounds too pro Israel so take a look at what developed between Gaddafi and Switzerland. This jihad is limited “bad” countries not to the UK.
http://www.france24.com/en/20100215-tripoli-suspend-eu-visas-uk-switzerland-africa-gadaffi
April 30th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
“With Islam spreading across the West, where else are British (and European) Jews going to go?”
To Paul Freeman and others: Paul, I disagree. Let me explain! Britain is a sickening immoral (No!, rather amoral) place in the “West”. It might or might not persecute its Jews in the future. Of course I agree with these sentiments and worries expressed. What I sharply contest is the fact that EVERYBODY represents the same mentality by and large in the West, or even Europe. Look across the North Sea (No, I’m not talking about France, but even THEY are better in this respect – abject self-emasculation, rampant appeasement, antisemitism among the elite and lower etc. etc.), but there IS I know for a fact a plucky little country similarly or more! overwhelmed with Islam like England but they are not in the mode of surrendering just yet. I am confident that they will win this battle! The country is nominally 41.000 square miles, but more than 8000 is water of it. It founded New York City and there were stickers everywjhere when last year I spent almost 2 months in this Euro state. It might survive the Islamic tsunami – might!, unlike Britain. Perhaps the Jewish masses could try there or Israel!
May 1st, 2010 at 5:57 pm
“UK Muslims systematically supporting anti-Israel candidates in British election campaign”
This is a highly irresponsible and inflammatory headline – and article.
a) You first base your assertions on an article by ONE individual who is representative of nobody
b) Altikriti only mentions Israel right at the end of his article
c) He says only that “the Lib Dems have made the better pronouncements when it comes to Palestine and Iraq, albeit to a lesser extent on Afghanistan” – where is the “anti-Israel” agenda here???? Or is being anti-settlement and in favour of the creation of a Palestinians state “anti-Israel” in your eyes?
d) Can you provide concrete evidence that EVERY ONE of the candidates backed by the BMI exhibit “VIRULENT hostility to Israel”? Or is it perhaps rather the case that many are e.g. simply opposed to continued Jewish settlement building?
e) Have the BMI embedded vote-determining microchips in the heads of all UK Muslim voters?
That headline is an absolute disgrace, Robin.
But most of your audience above seem to be lapping it up. The question as ever is: do they gullibly actually believe all your insinuations, or are they just using such “information” as further ammunition with which to deflect criticism of Israel?
And then there are posts that have little to do with Israel …
Empress Trudy Says:
“I’m afraid the UK is only a few years away from either an open pogrom or legal expulsion of all Jews.”
I mean: come on. This is simply ridiculous!
That said: obviously there can be no defending the frankly deranged Tonge.
p.s. “Tonge was reprimanded for her remarks but not expelled from the party.” Only “reprimanded”? Strange how you fail to mention that she was sacked from her front-bench position in the Lords! Yes, that’s not enough in my book either – but why omit the sacking?
May 1st, 2010 at 6:01 pm
AKUS Says:
“Poor Britian … falling into the hands of xenophobic religious fanatics who sole interest is the destruction of Israel rather than building a better live for themselves”
Who exactly are you referring to there? What proportion of British Muslims?
How on Earth is Britain “falling into their hands”???
May 2nd, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Gabor
It’s clear that the focus of Islamic anger against Jews worldwide is Israel’s existence. Looking into the future as far as one can, it’s reasonable to believe that as long as there is a Jewish state in the Middle East, defending itself against Arab and Muslim aggression, that anger will continue. A pattern has already been established of violent demonstrations, perhaps coordinated internationally, whenever Israel goes to war. And each time, certainly in Britain, there has been a hike in attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions.
With Muslims allying with anti-Israel and antisemitic elements in western society, what we are seeing is the globalization of the Middle East conflict with Jews everywhere now coming under attack.
As Muslim populations in Europe increase and Islamists grow correspondingly in confidence and power, there will undoubtedly be more of these attacks. What is troubling about the Guardian article is that it shows many Muslims in this country ignoring normal party political lines and organizing with an international focus. Characteristically, their demands are more to do with expelling infidels from what they regard as Muslim lands thousands of miles away than with the ordinary concerns in a western democracy. Muslims are organizing as a single issue bloc to support candidates whose policies and rhetoric objectively support the jihad and with it the demonization of Israel and Jews. And the lesson is not being lost on even mainstream politicians ambitious for power.
In these circumstances, will governments in Europe that are locked into mutually reinforcing policies of Muslim appeasement, denial and political correctness address the novel problem of the persecution of a religious minority by an alien religion aided and abetted by post-religious secularists? Will the West at last wake up to the fact that the Jews’ war of survival is its own war of survival? No one knows the answer to these questions, but Jews will not hang around to find out. For though there may be, as you suggest, national variations, Jews will not endure the slow tidal wave of hatred that is coming.
The result will be that Europe is depleted of its Jewish populations. Can there be any other conclusion?
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:37 pm
pretzelberg! Let me just say that in alTikriti’s quote you yourself cite mentions on the very first place “Palestine”. What could it mean anything else other than hostility to Israel? Don’t you think this pride of place signals something in itself? And btw how on earth do you know if he himself – as his organisation – does not want to supplicant Israel with an all-encompassing Palestine in place of it in his heart like Azzam Tamimi for example? do you have evidence for his acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist? I am pessimist and my pessimism actually is based on previous reports of his organisation in this respect!