The Hidden Costs of Jew-Baiting in England

For the linked version (and the place to leave comments) go to the PJMedia site. -rl

The Hidden Costs of Jew-Baiting in England
Jew-baiting has become something of a sport in England, as Brits feed the monster — radical Islam — that devours them.
July 10, 2010 – by Richard Landes

London is an amazing place, full of vitality, intensity, foreign tourists and residents, a patchwork of pluralism. Talk to the average person, and nothing seems amiss: this cab driver, having driven in London for 40 years, sees no significant change in the neighborhoods he travels through; this financier sees no signs of intimidation; this shopper, this tavern-hopper, this man on the bus, lives in an interesting and relatively normal world. A superficial walk through the [Regent’s] park gives the distinct sense of normality.

But talk to the Jews, and you get a different story. The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists held a conference here this week. The topic: Democratic and Legal Norms in an Age of Terror. Panels discussed everything from the Goldstone Report, to the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, to “universal jurisdiction” (lawfare against Israelis brought in foreign courts). Here, in the Khalili Lecture Theatre of the SOAS (School for Oriental and African Studies), Jewish lawyers discussed a grim reality whose only public appearance on an everyday basis is the drumbeat of calumny that a boisterous elite — NGOs, journalists, academics — rain down on Israel.

Perhaps the most startling of the sessions concerned the BDS movement. Jonathan Rynhold, from the BESA Center at Bar Ilan, and Anthony Julius, author of Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, both presented a picture of British anti-Zionist activity whose intellectual and moral foundations were profoundly irrational, a dogmatic will to stigmatize and destroy Israel that responded to no argument about proportion (what about other places?) or reason (you make no moral demands of the Palestinians). And behind that lies a much weightier volume of negative feeling, a kind of unthinking animosity that expressed itself in its most banal form when a woman explained to Julius: “We all know why the Jews are hated: you marry among yourselves and live in ghettos like Golders Green and Vienna [sic].” In so doing, she put her finger on the most widespread subtext for hostility to Jews – “they think they’re the chosen people.”

Daniel Eilon, an English solicitor, explained to me one of the mechanisms. It isn’t real anti-Semitism. In fact, most of the stuff that comes out against Israel is intellectually hopeless — phony narratives based on fantasy “facts.” This is really just good old-fashioned Jew-baiting. It’s saying things in all righteous innocence that you know will hurt the Jews to whom you address the criticism. The problem for the Brits (and the Europeans in general), he pointed out, is that historically, there’s never been a particularly high price to pay for Jew-baiting. Now there is.

What my friend referred to with this last remark is lucidly analyzed by Robin Shepherd in his recent book, A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel. The elephant in the room, of course, is radical Islam — the people who interpret being “chosen” by Allah as a charter to dominate the world and submit everyone, willingly or not, to Islam. They’re the people no one dares bait; and they’re the folks who take full advantage of every deference to press for more. Daily aggressions from violent gangs constantly expand the territories where the Queen’s writ does not run. In tempo with the retreat of British law and enforcement, Sharia advances from internal community affairs (explicitly on the model of Jewish religious courts) towards the policing of community boundaries and claims on the state for special treatment. The British — like so many other Western nations –mainstream the extremists and marginalize the moderates. As Nick Cohen put it: “The world faces a psychotic movement and won’t admit it to themselves.”

A documentary filmmaker reveals a double assault on freedom of speech: on the one hand, everyone is terrified of peers calling them Islamophobes; and on the other, anyone who does something negative on Islam puts his or her life in danger. When I respond animatedly to her point, she looks around nervously and signals for me to lower my voice. How often did my British informants tell me in hushed tones about being intimidated!

News agencies send their journalists to special courses in self-defense for how to deal with hostile situations. How much of this responds to the pervasive dangers of doing journalism in Muslim countries, and how often does it come up in those areas where the Queen’s writ does not run? One such journalist who works for the BBC reports that when a mob turns ugly, they are told to stand back to back, palms open, pointing down and out — a posture of non-threat, but also one of subjection.

And of course, the best protection is positive coverage. Most of the time, “but we’re from the BBC” works to allay Muslim hostility: it’s code for “we’re on your side.” But for some crowds, even that’s not enough.

The result of this pervasive intimidation that comes from both peers and enemies is a body politic that feels no pain. Like a victim of CIP (congenital insensitivity to pain), the British public receives only vague hints of the assaults on its body. A widespread omerta operates in the mainstream news media, guaranteeing that many, if not most aggressions go unreported, or in a code — “Asian” street gangs — that only those looking for clues will notice. Aggregator sites online offer deeply disturbing collections of news items.

As a result, Brits look away while their Muslim communities are taken over by fascist zealots who enforce dress and behavior codes, who silence dissent, and who mobilize a resentful youth with violent hatreds. For these men, infidels are by definition guilty, deserving rape and lethal assault, as part of Allah’s justice. Douglas Murray’s study of twenty-seven Muslims, targeted by zealots, reveals the workings of a community hijacked by thugs.

The trials and tribulations of Afshan Azad, the Bengali Muslim-born actress in the Harry Potter films, beaten and threatened with death by her family, illustrate the depth of the community pressures. Her brothers’ failures to bring her to heel (or kill her) endanger their lives: “We are going to get trouble from the community now. It is bad news for our safety, her safety. My younger brother is going to get harassed at college. All our family is going to be harassed by the community because of this.” The tribal community rules, even in college.

So while a large and growing population falls under the grip of a Mafioso culture with an imperialist ideology of world conquest, the British look away. The “prestigious” London School of Economics disinvited Douglas Murray from speaking, lest his presence provoke violence. Paralyzed by an inability to discuss the problem, they become a train-wreck in slow motion. The lavish expenses that the government has paid out to immigrant families, which has at once increased their numbers and stilled their rage, is now run out. Budget cuts of up to 40% across the board will only exacerbate the frictions, and if the government pours money into appeasing the Muslims, they will alienate the British working class losing their benefits.

Which brings us back to Jew-baiting. As Shepherd explains in his chapter on Islam in Europe, this is a European-wide phenomenon that is directly related to the fear of criticizing Muslims. Anti-Zionism is the key extremist discourse by which jihadis radicalize communities and mobilize warriors for Allah’s armies. The disturbing figures for how many British Muslims support terror, think Muslims did not commit either 9-11 or 7-7, think the law should punish people who insult Islam, and think that apostates from Islam should die should not be read the way we read political polls in the West. These minorities are the dominant voices in their communities, if only because they use their terror tactics against fellow Muslims far more readily than against outsiders.

So while their enemies advance, the British elites are like deer in the headlights, incapable of speaking up for even their own principles of free speech and tolerance. Intimidated into silence about Muslims, somehow, they find their voice in denouncing the “real” genocidal evil empire: Israel. Thus some wax eloquent, like the Methodists with their thinly-disguised, resentful supersessionism; and others wax violent, like the anti-Zionist vandals, who damaged hundreds of thousands of pounds of property and got off scot free to the cheers of a Green MP.

Of course, every sin these brave ideologues accuse Israel of committing is done a thousand-fold by the very people who generate their demonizing narrative — the radical Muslims. It is these zealots who interpret their chosenness as a warrant to rape and massacre, to dominate and humiliate infidels. They are the toxic communitarians who believe in their side right or wrong, to the death — not the Jews, who can’t stop publicly beating their breasts about all their sins. Indeed, one of the mysterious factors in this madness is the role played by Jewish anti-Zionists, who, in Julius’ memorable phrase, are “proud to be ashamed to be Jewish.”

Instead of taking note of such sobering perspectives, Western anti-Zionists shy away from the dangerous and painful but legitimate and necessary criticism of Muslim radicals. They prefer the easy, cost-free baiting of any Jew proud enough to feel that his or her own people deserve a state. Instead of turning to the Muslims and saying “why can’t you express a fraction of the self-criticism of the Zionists?” they prefer to repeat the most toxic accusations against the Jews and claim: “I’m not saying anything that Jews haven’t said.”

They are the true Islamophobes — afraid to criticize Islam, eager to join in its chorus of hatred.

And in this act of demission before the Islamist challenge, British opinion makers and shapers also submit to their own bullies, their own zealots who push the Jew-baiting beyond the weekend sport of the salons, into the professional arena of anti-Zionist activism. When the founders of Hamas in 1988 penned their genocidal charter that explicitly targeted all infidels, little did they suspect that within twenty years, those infidels would chant “We are Hamas!” in the streets of London. Who could hope for a more useful infidel than that?

In the European past, Jew-baiting may have seemed relatively cost-free. After all, humiliate a Jew and the worst he’ll do is hector you. Sure, sometimes the sport got out of hand, and killing Jews en masse, or forcing them to convert, or kicking them out may have deeply damaged the economy and empowered repressive forces, like the Inquisition, to go after other religious dissidents. But who really noticed?

Today, however, the situation has changed dramatically because Europe doesn’t just run the risk of internal failure, but getting vanquished by an implacable and merciless foe. By failing to denounce toxic Muslim communitarianism and instead adopting its shrill discourse of demonization about Jews, Brits feed the monster that devours them. If it continues apace, if the British do not make Muslim civility towards Jews the shibboleth of assimilation to a free and democratic culture, they risk losing that civil polity entirely. As always with real anti-Semites, the Jews are only their first target.

Can Britain wake up in time? And if and when it does, can it swallow the painful price of giving up its addiction to Jew-baiting? Or will it be, as some close observers think, the first country in Europe to succumb to Islamism? Walking through the delightful streets of London, watching a brilliant performance of Henry IV Part II at the reconstituted Globe Theatre, passing by a multi-cultural mass of dancers by the embankment at night, viewing the vibrant energy of the city, one has little clue to the problem.

Or is watching this joyful celebration akin to seeing a fat man with a serious cholesterol problem dine on his deep-fried fish-and-chips and wash them down with those tasty truffles of moral Schadenfreude that so grieve the Jews and comfort the resentful?

52 Responses to The Hidden Costs of Jew-Baiting in England

  1. Alain Jean-Mairet says:

    I think you have it wrong, Richard: radical Islam is not the price of Jew-baiting; Jew-baiting is just one effect of tolerating Islam in a modern world, and radical Islam is another one.

    All what knowledgeable people used to know about Islam and the Jews is becoming unserviceable today, as Muslims are getting educated and increasingly take “their” Islam directly out of the books (coran, sunnah, tafsir, fiqh), instead of through an imam or some other word of mouth.

    In history, Muslims who have been inspired directly by scriptures always were radicals and Jew hating, save the usual exceptions, because you won’t find anything else in those scriptures if you read them thoroughly, honestly, carefully, and reasonably, as a classical jurist. So, today’s Islam, with its followers able to read, at last, produces much more radicals and Jew haters than ever.

    Yes, Westerners afraid of being labeled Islamophobes are playing along and that’s a shame. But it’s just a side effect and thus a weak leverage. And Jews who, on the other hand, keep telling us, based on solid but obsolete experience, that Islam is anyhow okay or should be considered so, for example in order to counter radical Islam, actually help Islam to produce its modern radicalism and anti-Semitism, taken quite directly in the poisonous myth of the prophet. They are working at their own demise.

    All interesting points. I’m certainly not one of the romantics about “classical” Islam being tolerant. My point is not that Jew-Baiting is the cause of radical Islam, but that it’s a long-standing addiction that feeds radical Islam. Indeed, the addiction for Christians (and “Enlightenment” seculars) is the product of the same honor-shame feelings that drive Islamic anti-Judaism, i.e., the need for invidious identity formation – we (Christians, Muslims) are superior to you Jews who mistakenly think you’re the chosen people. -rl

  2. This is actually the ultimate result of a heresy that I always found most strong and obstinate in Britain, although Italy too is addicted to it: the heresy of dialogue. That is, the general idea that there is no problem on earth that cannot be solved, and no distance that cannot be filled, and no difference that cannot be reconciled, by sitting down and talking about it. That, of course, is nonsense; but all my life – and while not ancient, I am well into my middle age – the vast majority of the people I met clung to it as though it were their mother’s breast, feeding them their mother’s milk. There is literally no way to convince most of them that there are limits to dialogue. So we have had the unreconciled “reconciliation” in Northern Ireland – where cops are not shot any more, but the terrorists of both sides effectively patrol and control their communities. This at best half-successful piece of “dialogue”, of course, has convinced the majority, who do not live in NI and don’t have to suffer the swagger and menace of the “militants”, that “dialogue” is the solution. Britain aggressively marketed the veterans of Northern Ireland as specialists in conflict resolution across the world; it is no coincidence that the figurehead of the “peace process” in NI, Tony Blair, is now the international delegate to have peace in the Middle East.

    Now, there is a process that has taken place again and again but from which the dialogue-addicts never learn: when a conflict arises, the dialogue-addicts inevitably tend to favour the more violent, more brutal and more unscrupulous side. So in the thirties they favoured Hitler against France, in the sixties the Soviet Union against America, and now the Muslim world against Israel. Why? Because there is an absolutely inevitable process. Prime Minister Bullying-Bastard is always willing to talk. He is friendly, hospitable, will listen for hours. ON the other hand, Prime Minister Threatened-Decency cannot pretend that he can offer the moon. He has to place limits on the concessions he is willing to make. And the result of this is inevitably that the dialogue-addicts remain impressed, even enchanted, by the friendly openness of Mr.Bullying-Bastard, and increasingly sadly disappointed by the intransigence of Mr.Threatened-Decency. Hitler’s antechamber positively swarmed with pacifists from every nation; even after he had conquered Poland and France, he was still talking peace, peace, peace at any cost. As for Joe Stalin, he positively took out the copyright on pacifism; every international pacifist association from the thirties onwards was a Soviet front. And our Muslim friends! Why, how open to debate they are, how willing to talk, talk for hours at a time, any time of day and night! Nobody could possibly imagine that they have anything against dialogue. And they don’t – since they expect dialogue to deliver everything they want, bit by bit. That is why “peace” must be a “process”; so that everything may be renegotiated over and over again, dead issues resurrected, impossible demands made over and over again with every appearance of reasonableness. That is what “dialogue” is about. What happened is quite simply this: that many Europeans, and an enormous majority of Britons, have become addicted to this opium. And because this drug only works one way, can only work one way, it always ends up allying the dialogue-addicts with the worst villains.

    very interesting comment; important points. let me add some thoughts:
    1) it’s more of an accomplishment to stroke a feral beast than a pussycat. i think people like Jimmy Carter feel they prove they can “speak with all people” when they enter the lairs of men like Assad or Mashal or Nasrullah.
    2) the dialogue addicts are just following out the standard liberal notion that violence is the result of misunderstanding rather than selfishness. it’s the positive-sum fantasy that we can solve all things in a win-win. Stuart Green had a brilliant comment in his talk at Herzilya, which went over most people’s heads: “conflicts may be driven by lucid mutual understanding.”
    3) the admirable commitment to finding non-violent solutions may work in many, even most, cases. the key to whether it’s admirable or cowardly comes when, in the cases it will not work, peace-makers can recognize their limits and take the courage to engage in violence in the defense of their own selves. as the Israeli Supreme Court noted: “Democracy is not a suicide pact.”
    -rl

  3. Eliyahu says:

    Let’s look at the Europe-wide aspect then at the UK alone.
    According to Bat Yeor, the pro-Muslim policy in Europe began at least as early as the the early 1970s. I read an article from LeMonde back in 1972, before the Yom Kippur War, which already called for a pan-European [or EEC] policy at that time in favor of the Arabs and Islam. DeGaulle was moving in a pro-Arab, pro-Muslim direction after he withdrew from Algeria. Certain Euro leaders knew what they were doing when they invited great masses of Arab immigrants. I refer specifically to Giscard d’Estaing who seems to have wanted large numbers of specifically Arab immigrants in France. Giscard was NOT a “leftist.” Likewise, the UK govt seems to have wanted a large number of specifically Muslim immigrants [in the UK case, Pakistanis & Bangladeshis]. I believe that many but not all of these Euro leaders who wanted to bring in specifically Muslim immigrants knew and understood what the consequences might be. To be sure, proving this concretely is another matter. But when certain actions are repeated despite difficulties caused by previous actions of the same kind, then one may assume that the policy-makers knew and may even have welcomed the ensuing problems.

    comment below #33. -rl

    As to Britain, its pro-Muslim policy goes back to at least 1922 [Smyrna Affair] or even to 1920 when the UK, through the Supreme Allied Council [of the WW One Entente powers] ordered Greece to stop its advance into Anatolia where it was pursuing defeated Turkish troops. The Greek Army stopped along a barely defensible line. In two years, the Turks had regrouped, rearmed, and found new leadership [Ataturk]. In 1922, not only was the Greek army driven out of Anatolia but the millions of ethnic Greeks in Anatolia were driven out, driven into the sea as it were, while surviving Armenians were massacred. The episode of the Anatolian Greeks is somehow little known in America and the West in general. It is mostly known in America, it seems to me, through works of fiction, Hemingway’s story, “On the Quay at Smyrna” [in In Our Time], Elia Kazan’s America, America, and Eugenides’ Middlesex. Even though both Britain and the US had warships watching the expulsion of the Greeks in Smyrna, neither acted to stop it.

    So the UK was also involved in Smyrna in 1922. Meanwhile, its policy toward the Jewish National Home was becoming increasingly anti-Zionist through the 1920s, culminating in the 1939 “Palestine White Paper,” which “locked” Jews into Nazi-ruled Europe, in Menahem Begin’s words [on the anti-Zionist policy see the new book by Isaiah Friedman]. The bbc was, shall we say, stingy with news about the Holocaust while it was going on and thereby did not warn Jews on the Continent of what lie in wait for them.

    In short, British pro-Muslim policy at the expense of non-Muslim peoples goes back to at least 1922, while anti-Zionism too goes back to the 1920s in London. The Brit administration on the ground in Jerusalem was anti-Jewish [also influenced by the Protocols] at least by 1920.

  4. Durotrigan says:

    Alain Jean-Mairet, I think that you have it right:

    “Jew-baiting is just one effect of tolerating Islam in a modern world.”

    Furthermore, you are also correct in noting that Muslim radicalisation has largely arisen as a consequence of increased literacy amongst Muslim populations which has allowed Muslims to directly access and ingest their ideology of hate and conquest. Radical Islam – i.e. doctrinaire Islam – has nothing to do with redressing specific ‘grievances’ and everything to do with being a ‘good’ Muslim i.e. a practising, observant and doctrinaire Muslim.

    An EU report came out a few years ago which wasn’t given the publicity that it deserved because it highlighted that contrary to popular media myth, the majority of anti-Semitic attacks in its member states were not perpetrated by “far-right” skinheads, but by Muslims. Disturbingly, the number of such attacks was noted to be on the rise.

    Alas, for whatever combination of reasons, our politicians still refuse to acknowledge the problem of Islam in our country let alone deal with it. Instead, we hear foolish statements from David Cameron, Simon Hughes and David Miliband about the “positive” aspects of Islam: Cameron stating that non-Muslim Britons ought to integrate more with Muslim values than vice-versa; Hughes gushing like an effusive dhimmi before an Islamic audience that he would like to see many Muslim ministers, and Miliband seeking to secure Turkey’s entry to the EU as the first stage of bringing in Islamic states from the Middle East and North Africa.

    We lack the mainstream political leadership required to deal with the Islamic menace, and the recent spate of demonstrations from vociferous Islamist groups on our streets calling for the imposition of Shariah and the unity of the Ummah indicate that our enemy is growing in strength and resolution, whereas those who ought to be defending our liberties and way of life are gradually ceding them to this militant minority. Only yesterday, Cardiff bore witness to a demonstration organised by a campaign/body calling itself “Ummah Rise”. Unsurprisingly, the BBC gave it fawning and uncritical coverage: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2010/07/bbcs-perspective-on-ummah-rise.html

    The Jews in Britain and elsewhere in Europe therefore face a future in which I am afraid anti-Semitism will continue to increase, for the number of Muslims in our countries is growing at an alarming pace and the mass media and political class continue to pander to their agenda.

  5. Don Cox says:

    “As to Britain, its pro-Muslim policy goes back to at least 1922″

    You could go back to Gertrude Bell and Lawrence several years earlier, or to various 19C travellers.

    But there has always been a pro-Jewish faction and a pro_Arab faction in British politics. Half of Thatcher’s cabinet were Jewish; we have not yet had a government dominated by Muslims.

    What has changed is that whereas there have been Jews in Europe for millennia, there are now also large numbers of Muslims, so the ugly coflicts of the Middle East are on our doorstep.

    And don’t forget that the Hindus are equally hated by extreme Muslims – many British people perceive Hindus and Muslims alike as “Asians”.

  6. incognito says:

    as Muslims are getting educated and increasingly take “their” Islam directly out of the books (coran, sunnah, tafsir, fiqh), instead of through an imam or some other word of mouth.

    Well, not all of them surely. And as far as I know those
    who take their Islam from imams are not less radical than
    those who don’t. That’s certainly true for arabs.

    Yes, Westerners afraid of being labeled Islamophobes are playing along and that’s a shame.

    If that were true, then westerners would be afraid to be labeled anti-semites too, but they aren’t. This suggests that the fear is not from the label, but from the violence that one of the labels but not the other would trigger.

  7. incognito says:

    In short, British pro-Muslim policy at the expense of non-Muslim peoples goes back to at least 1922, while anti-Zionism too goes back to the 1920s in London.

    Well, Britain’s mandate was over a largely arab area and it was in its interest to keep the arabs quiet. Similarly, as the UK native population dies out and the
    muslim population grows, the british must keep the latter quiet.

    Arabs, muslims — the policy is similar and due to the same instinct: fear. The jews are an inconvenience in both cases, because both the arabs and the muslims hate them.

  8. Cynic says:

    many British people perceive Hindus and Muslims alike as “Asians”

    Thanks in large part to Britain’s PC media and Police.
    I well remember the incident of that poor Scottish teenager murdered by PakistanisAsians.

    Asian gang guilty of schoolboy’s race hate murder

    A jury at the High Court in Edinburgh took almost eight hours to convict Imran Shahid, 29, his brother Zeeshan Shahid, 28, and 27-year-old Mohammed Faisal Mushtaq of the abduction, assault and brutal killing on Monday March 15, 2004.
    ….
    Kriss, 15, was stabbed 13 times and set on fire while he was still alive, on a quiet walkway behind Celtic FC’s training ground in the east end of Glasgow.

  9. Alain Jean-Mairet says:

    In “Diplomatische Tauschgeschäfte: Gastarbeiter in der west-deutschen Diplomatie und Beschäftigungs-politik 1953-1973” (2008), Heike Knortz shows that the coming of immigrants in Germany (from Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Morocco, and Tunisia) was always initiated by demands from the said countries, never by a proposition (or an industrial need) of Germany.

    We may assume that the motivations of those countries (reduce unemployment, cool down troubled situations) were the same for most of the Muslim immigration in Europe. If so, immigration has been a demand from Muslim countries much more than a wish of European politicians, although the latter had or preferred to present it that way in order to make the necessary political deals.

    Many Muslim “radicals” and even some “normal” Muslim politicians have claimed that that immigration was a form of jihad. But radicals are not supposed to be representative of Islam, and Muslim politicians usually have (at least) two different public faces.

    How would things have turned out, aslo regarding Jew-baiting, without the influence of Islam?

    Oh, and does it really hold water to say that a policy that strongly helped Ataturk was pro-Muslim? Ataturk probably did more to get rid of Islam in his own country than anyone else in history. To support him can easily be seen as anti-Islam as it gets, if it had anything to do with that.

  10. incognito says:

    Philip Weiss, endangering journalism—and journalists
    By Ron Kampeas
    http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2010/07/08/2739969/philip-weiss-endangering-journalism-and-journalists

    Somewhere in there is an argument that western policies are more anti-jewish than they are pro-arab or pro-muslim.

  11. Alain Jean-Mairet says:

    Only the worst nightmares of imams are as radical as Muhammad is described to have been in the old Muslim scriptures.

    And Westerners ARE afraid to be labeled anti-Semites too, but now they can comfortably hide behind anti-Zionism. Thanks to narratives provided essentially by Muslims.

  12. Alain Jean-Mairet says:

    As long as Israel will be Jewish and Muslims will be supposed to believe in the fable of the prophet, there won’t be anything more pro-Arab and pro-Muslim than anti-Zionism.

  13. Muttering Retreat says:

    Re: “if the British do not make Muslim civility towards Jews the shibboleth of assimilation to a free and democratic culture, they risk losing that civil polity entirely. As always with real anti-Semites, the Jews are only their first target.”

    Oh, Richard is missing the big picture and letting Jew baiting take him down a side trail. It isn’t even about making Muslims civil towards the Jew or any infidel; it is about a planned Muslim takeover of all the lands they once controlled, and Ahmadinejad has explained all this in a speech. If Iran wins in Palestine, Islam wins in the war between Islam and the West–Islam’s war to retake their “lost” lands upon which European democracies now sit. Israel and her Jewish (and Arab) population is just the beginning.

    Civility? You think civility is the problem? How provincial.

    How about governance shifting to Islam from Western democracies all across Europe?

  14. Eliyahu says:

    Alain, in 1922, Ataturk was very much a Muslim, at least in public. His followers called him Ghazi, that is, a warrior against the infidels. His turn against Islam did not come until 1924, at the earliest.

  15. Eliyahu says:

    Since we’re talking about anti-Zionism, I want to recommend to all who read French the new book by Pierre-Andre Taguieff, La Nouvelle propagande antijuive. He shows how the new Judeophobia employs old anti-Jewish themes, like ritual murder, the passion, etc. By the way, he quotes Richard Landes several times.

  16. [...] post: Augean Stables » The Hidden Costs of Jew-Baiting in England // Augean Stables » The Hidden Costs of Jew-Baiting in England stated above has been [...]

  17. Observer says:

    Radicalisation of Jews world wide seems the right response. I’m a Texas jew and am good with that.

    From an American and Texan POV I think the radical Arab attitude should be tested. I welcome Latinos from over the border. And would love to see their response that radical Arabs would walk on their backs to make Latino life more hard. With decriminalized pot we’d simply own all Islamists stupid enough to try.

    Now the Canadians… well we already know. They let Islamic radicals in. No slam – they simply have that sort of system. Perhaps we should make sure their laws ensure terrorists stay in their borders rather than bleed through to ours.

  18. incognito says:

    Only the worst nightmares of imams are as radical as Muhammad is described to have been in the old Muslim scriptures.

    Ah, but there’s plenty of those.

  19. Cynic says:

    Alain Jean-Mairet,

    How would things have turned out, aslo regarding Jew-baiting, without the influence of Islam?

    Most probably far fewer people trying to ward off their worst fears by throwing Jews at the beast.

    Worth reading because for many in the West it is just too frightening to think about Islam and its intentions

    The Fear that Wilders is Right

    Talk about “inconvenient truths,” these are about as inconvenient as they get. No wonder they are buried from the discussion and ignored. We in the West live in a society that cannot even begin to wrap its mind around that. I know – it’s hard for me.

    So where does that leave Wilders? I believe that consciously or unconsciously those who brand him as excessive, or even racist, are living in fear that he may be right. They have to hate Wilders, because if he is correct, their whole world disintegrates.

  20. Alain Jean-Mairet says:

    Right. Well then I’d say we have to establish – to really prove, not just try to convince – that Wilders is right. Fearful people will then stay out of the way while real people will be able to take judicious actions, and reject Islam entirely.

  21. incognito says:

    I believe that consciously or unconsciously those who brand him as excessive, or even racist, are living in fear that he may be right. They have to hate Wilders, because if he is correct, their whole world disintegrates.

    Exactly what I’ve been arguing for years, much earlier than others caught on to it.

  22. incognito says:

    Well then I’d say we have to establish – to really prove, not just try to convince – that Wilders is right. Fearful people will then stay out of the way while real people will be able to take judicious actions, and reject Islam entirely.

    As to proofs, the evidence is overwhelming. That’s the precise reason why they hate Wilders, because they KNOW he is right.

    As to judicious actions, that’s an illusion. The west is decadent, bankrupt and corrupted to the core. Its era is over and it is in no capacity to fight back even if it decided tomorrow to do so, which it won’t.

    Indeed, their reaction to Wilders (and others) is precisely to avoid judicious action.

  23. incognito says:

    Here’s a taste:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/you_darn_disruptive_voters_you.html

    States are bankrupt, education does not exist and the elite is perturbed about “electoral disruptions”. And the US is much better than Europe.

  24. incognito says:

    Read the following in the context of Aumann’s article:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/do-iranians-think-it%E2%80%99s-true

  25. incognito says:

    And speaking of education collapse, here’s the academia:

    http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2010/07/it-pays-to-be-unobvious.html

    Must read!

  26. There are smaller minorities of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists. Religious Studies

  27. Eliyahu says:

    Incog et al, I want to call your attention to a couple of new posts of mine on the Chinese riots thread. They deal with Finkielkraut’s speech, with Goethe and such.

  28. incognito says:

    Eliyahu,

    Links?

  29. Richard Landes says:

    Eliyahu wrote:

    According to Bat Yeor, the pro-Muslim policy in Europe began at least as early as the the early 1970s. I read an article from LeMonde back in 1972, before the Yom Kippur War, which already called for a pan-European [or EEC] policy at that time in favor of the Arabs and Islam. DeGaulle was moving in a pro-Arab, pro-Muslim direction after he withdrew from Algeria. Certain Euro leaders knew what they were doing when they invited great masses of Arab immigrants. I refer specifically to Giscard d’Estaing who seems to have wanted large numbers of specifically Arab immigrants in France. Giscard was NOT a “leftist.” Likewise, the UK govt seems to have wanted a large number of specifically Muslim immigrants [in the UK case, Pakistanis & Bangladeshis]. I believe that many but not all of these Euro leaders who wanted to bring in specifically Muslim immigrants knew and understood what the consequences might be. To be sure, proving this concretely is another matter. But when certain actions are repeated despite difficulties caused by previous actions of the same kind, then one may assume that the policy-makers knew and may even have welcomed the ensuing problems.

    I believe that Bat-Yeor’s point is that the oil-produces specifically demanded that Europe reciprocate for their oil by a) supporting the Arabs in the diplomatic world; and b) importing labor for Muslim countries. I don’t think they expected trouble from their Muslims (who, by and large, in the first generation, were quite docile). They were arrogant enough to assume that their superior culture would dominate Islam effortlessly. Don’t forget that before 1979, Westerners assumed that Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, was being ground up in the juggernaut of “secularization” and headed for the dust-bin of history.

    Indeed, it wasn’t really until the battle cry of Al Durah that European Muslims (and Muslims around the world) became openly defiant on a large scale. It’s as if the Muslim population of Europe was filled with unconscious sleeper cells (in many cases the sons of immigrants), who were awakened by the incitement campaign that the Western MSNM so obligingly amplified with their “real-time” coverage of events. Thank you “Scoop” Enderlin.

  30. incognito says:

    Most of what Bat-Yeor describes has to do with the foreign policies of the west.

    I don’t have statistics, but it seems to me that the immigration into Europe has not been massively Arab. Rather the immigrants came from Asia, Marocco, Turkey.

    Or am I mistaken?

    Aren’t Marrocans Arab? In France the overwhelming majority of Muslims are North African, in England Indian/Pakistani/Bengladeshi, in Germany, Turkish, etc., etc. -rl

  31. incognito says:

    Ooohh. They’re really coming out of the woodwork now:

    Farrakhan Demands Reparations from Jews
    by Daniel Pipes
    http://www.danielpipes.org/8616/farrakhan-demands-reparations-from-jews

    Ask yourself why they dare now to be so explicit.

  32. Eliyahu says:

    Fabio, your #2 is excellent. In practice, objectively speaking, the peacemongers are warmongers.

    This article below seems to argue that conclusion.
    http://www.netanyahu.org/peacmovthena.html

  33. Eliyahu says:

    Durotrigan, looked on your site & found the following from an Islamist demo in Cardiff:

    Islam is the answer. Democracy is the cancer

    Democracy = Hypocrisy

    Of course, there is a lot wrong with contemporary Western society considered to be “democratic.” The Communists of various breeds used to point out some of these flaws. The advantage that Islamist propagandists have is that many people can recognize the flaws of contemporary society. But it is dangerous to move from seeing the flaws to thinking that Communism or Islam is the cure for them. Unfortunately, some people do just that. They are unaware that the cure can be worse than the disease. All they have to do is look at the reality of most Islamic lands from Morocco to Indonesia. But neither their educational system nor the universities –in great part– nor the media/MSM are going to tell them the reality. Obama goes so far as to embellish and sweeten Islamic history in order to flatter the Muslims and make the non-Muslims more pliant to Muslim demands.

    So it is necessary to state openly and loudly that the conventional versions of history and Islam are false and flawed in many ways. That will either shut up the dummies or make them angry and lose self-control. That’s good too.

  34. Cynic says:

    rl,

    Re your question in #34 the answer I imagine is no!
    Most of them are of Berber stock and there have been many incidents where they have clashed verbally with Arabs.
    I don’t have any references unfortunately.
    I suppose one could dismiss Qaddafi’s rantings but many times he denied that he is an Arab.

  35. Cynic says:

    RL,

    I believe that Bat-Yeor’s point is that the oil-produces specifically demanded that Europe reciprocate for their oil by a) supporting the Arabs in the diplomatic world;

    According to Bat Ye’or de Gaul had Haj Amin al-Hussaini brought to France in 1945 and would not let him be tried at Nuremberg.
    He, H, pleaded for a Franco-Arab alliance against the British and Zionists.
    Apparently Hussaini proposed through his networks a French policy of solidarity with the Arab World.
    So it seems that the French were not bribed so much as dreaming of Power which was developed over the years leading to the 70s.
    So what if de Gaul entertained the Israelis in the 50s and part of the 60s; he was just acting out Fabio’s Mr.Bullying-Bastard in relation to Mr.Threatened-Decency Ben Gurion.

  36. incognito says:

    Regarding Fabio’s comments, he is of course, correct. But the underlying explanation is simpler: if you are trying to ensure peace AT ALL COSTS, then by definition you have to engage with the bully, because he is the one who threatens it. The bully knows that, hence he will talk about peace all the time to keep the focus of the peaceniks.

    It would be also useful to think of this in the the context of game theory that Aumann referred to.

  37. incognito says:

    Aren’t Marrocans Arab? In France the overwhelming majority of Muslims are North African, in England Indian/Pakistani/Bengladeshi, in Germany, Turkish, etc., etc. -rl

    There are Berbers in North Africa and they would be angry at you if you called them arabs, I think. If I am not mistaken, they’ve been oppressed by arabs.

  38. incognito says:

    But it is dangerous to move from seeing the flaws to thinking that Communism or Islam is the cure for them.

    Indeed, but as it turns out, just let a decade or two to pass, a couple of new generations, and all is forgotten.

    It looks like the world must undergo communism and Islam again to relearn the lessons.

  39. incognito says:

    So it seems that the French were not bribed so much as dreaming of Power which was developed over the years leading to the 70s.

    The modern history of France is nothing but desperate attempts to prove their power, which was inexistent.

  40. E.G. says:

    Cynic and incognito,

    Some are Berbers, most (Morrocans, Tunisians, Algerians) are Arabs.

  41. Eliyahu says:

    Cynic, Incog,
    All of the Big Four of WW2, US, UK, USSR, France, wanted Husseini, a collaborator in the Holocaust, NOT to be prosecuted at Nuremberg. The Brits had protected Husseini all along. He was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem and head of the Supreme Muslim Council by British officials of the mandatory govt.

    It was not only France that protected him after WW2. De Gaulle did not bring him to France. He turned up in France after the war when the Swiss rejected him, as I recall. He stayed in France for about a year under protected residence, not arrest. Again, all of the Big Four were against trying him at Nuremberg. He was allowed to leave France in May or June 1946, although his departure is sometimes described as an escape. He returned to the Middle East on an American aircraft, according to the NYT and to Husseini’s admirer, the Arab nationalist historian, Majid Khadduri. The only question is whether this aircraft was military [Khadduri] or TWA civilian [NYT]. I think that a possible resolution of the contradiction may lie in the possibility that civilian airliners, like those of TWA, were under US military control at that time.

    Further, France and De Gaulle were angry with the British for pushing them out of Syria and Lebanon. Then French intelligence learned of a secret British agreement with Syria [and Iraq?] to set up a pan-Arab state in the Fertile Crescent, made up of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan and “palestine” with its capital at Damascus. This pan-Arab state would be under UK sponsorship/protection with all sorts of favors for the UK under treaty. France did not like this plan and helped Israel in those years. See the articles by Meir Zamir in HaArets in 2008.

  42. incognito says:

    Eliyahu,

    Let the Europeans do their designs and you’ll end up with tragedies. Like clockwork.

    Thus, some satisfaction from their collapse is in order: the chickens are coming home to roost.

  43. [...] Augean Stables » The Hidden Costs of Jew-Baiting in England theaugeanstables.com/2010/07/11/the-hidden-costs-of-jew-baiting-in-england/ – view page – cached + “Post-Modern” Anti-Semitism: Cognitive Egocentrism, Moral Schadenfreude, and “Progressive” Anti-Zionism * Multiple-Part Essays + PJ (OSM) Media Launch + Mainstreaming Conspiracy Theories + Open Letter to Jostein Gaarder * HERZILYA CONFERENCE + Conceptual Principles + Program with Links + Bibliography * Saïd and Honor-Shame * Richard Landes CV Tweets about this link [...]

  44. Paul Halsall says:

    There is a lot of anti-Israel opinion in Britain and some people are clearly anti-Semitic.

    I recall in the 1960s and 1970s some occasional anti-Semitic comments among the working class people with whom I lived and was brought up – but it was almost exclusively to do with ethnic stereo-typing about meanness, and was much less vociferous than anti-Black or anti-Irish comments.

    Now I live in an area with among the largest Jewish populations in Britain, and I live in social housing among working class people. The local Labour MP is Jewish, and so in fact was his Conservative opponent in the last election. In the three years I have been here I have never heard any anti-Jewish comments by working class people. I have however heard a lot of anti-Asian comment (little distinction being made between Muslims or Hindus) and hostility towards South Asians is the dominant form of racial hostility I would think. (Afro-Caribbean people have largely been accepted, although there is some occasional retrograde hostility.)

    If you read the comments in The Guardian you will find a lot of educated middle class hostility to Israel, but I think that a lot of effort is made by the vast majority of such commentators not to attack Jews as such. There is no discussion of Judaism as a religion, since most Brits aren’t interested in religion and are not “Christian”. They are not even post-Christian for the most part. They are post-post Christian. [There is btw vastly less inhibition about attacking Catholicism and Catholics in general.]

    The hostility in my opinion has little to do with the historic tropes of anti-Semitism – i.e. racial opinion, supercessionist theology, nor ethnic stereotyping.

    For the most part, except for Asians, Britain is a live and let live country as far as most of the population is concerned. Actual incidents of anti-Semitic actions almost all seem to be done by a very small portion of some Mulsim communities.

    So I think what you call anti-Semitism is all about anti-Israel feeling. Many people are equally hostile to the United States. And there is much much more hostility and hatred of Islam and Muslims.

  45. [...] who like to bait Jews enjoy accusing them of taking “an eye for an eye” in their fight with the Palestinians, [...]

  46. Eliyahu says:

    Riots in Dudley, England, between police, English Defense League and local Paki Muslims who also attacked a Hindu temple there. 7-20-2010

  47. incognito says:

    Riots in Dudley, England, between police, English Defense League and local Paki Muslims who also attacked a Hindu temple there. 7-20-2010

    Get used to this — it’ll become routine.

  48. zaydesvox says:

    The UK of all places..our American heritage comes from England. Of course it was Britian’s colonialism that ruined her empire! As for Israel..they blew it in Palestine and cant stand that fact! But at least they gave a re birth to the new Jewish state! Look at this madness of the Arab “Spring?Fall”? After killing each other all over North Africa and Arabia..one would think they would stop killing fellow citizens. I smell a real war! Look who is on the Muslim side..Pakistan,Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afhganistan, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sommalia..only to name a few. They aint exactly in love with each other! Of course there is always us Jews to divert their hate! Oh well..at least it’s not marching to Auschwitz! NEVER AGAIN!I have guns and ammo…in a box..that says “dont open unless of a Pogrom!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>