We'll have to see how this story pans out, but somehow I don't think it'll get similar coverage to another Westerner killed in Israel, Rachel Corrie
--------------
Briton dies in Jerusalem stabbing
BBC News
25 August 2005
A British man was stabbed to death and another injured in an attack in Jerusalem, the Foreign Office has said.
Shmuel Mett, 21, and fellow Jewish religion student Sammy Weisberg were attacked in the Old City area on Wednesday evening. Reports said the men were attacked by a Palestinian with a kitchen knife.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Israelis 'warned of 7/7 bombings'
Private Eye 1137
22 July 2005
ANOTHER rumour which has circulated widely is that Israeli finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu received prior warning of the bombs via the Israeli embassy and therefore declined to attend a conference in London that day.
This was based partly on an erroneous report from an "official at the embassy" which appeared on the Associated Press wire service, and partly on the determination of anti-semites to believe, just as they did with an equal lack of evidence after the 9/11 attacks in New York, that Jews were warned to vacate the area prior to an attack set up by Zionists keen to demonise Muslims.
This theory is rather hard to square with the fact that the meeting Netanyahu was scheduled to attend was the Israeli Opportunity 2005 conference organised jointly by the Israeli Embassy and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, and it was taking place at the Great Eastern Hotel almost directly above the bomb which exploded near Liverpool Street station, which meant that there was actually a significantly higher number of Jews than usual in the area when the bomb exploded.
Netanyahu, however, was not there - as the conference's schedule shows, he was not due to deliver his speech until 9.30, which meant that he had just left his own hotel to make his way to the Great Eastern when he received news of the explosion at Liverpool Street, at about the same time as everyone else, 9.15, when TV and radio stations began reporting it.
Unsurprisingly, his security guards decided to turn back. The unnamed official had simply muddled his times in the confusion (much as everyone else did: the police did not even realise the underground blasts had been simultaneous until the following day), and AP duly withdrew the claim - not that this stopped the Daily Express and Mail on Sunday from reporting it over the weekend, the latter under the spectacularly misleading headline '"No Alert' claim is thrown into doubt".
22 July 2005
ANOTHER rumour which has circulated widely is that Israeli finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu received prior warning of the bombs via the Israeli embassy and therefore declined to attend a conference in London that day.
This was based partly on an erroneous report from an "official at the embassy" which appeared on the Associated Press wire service, and partly on the determination of anti-semites to believe, just as they did with an equal lack of evidence after the 9/11 attacks in New York, that Jews were warned to vacate the area prior to an attack set up by Zionists keen to demonise Muslims.
This theory is rather hard to square with the fact that the meeting Netanyahu was scheduled to attend was the Israeli Opportunity 2005 conference organised jointly by the Israeli Embassy and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, and it was taking place at the Great Eastern Hotel almost directly above the bomb which exploded near Liverpool Street station, which meant that there was actually a significantly higher number of Jews than usual in the area when the bomb exploded.
Netanyahu, however, was not there - as the conference's schedule shows, he was not due to deliver his speech until 9.30, which meant that he had just left his own hotel to make his way to the Great Eastern when he received news of the explosion at Liverpool Street, at about the same time as everyone else, 9.15, when TV and radio stations began reporting it.
Unsurprisingly, his security guards decided to turn back. The unnamed official had simply muddled his times in the confusion (much as everyone else did: the police did not even realise the underground blasts had been simultaneous until the following day), and AP duly withdrew the claim - not that this stopped the Daily Express and Mail on Sunday from reporting it over the weekend, the latter under the spectacularly misleading headline '"No Alert' claim is thrown into doubt".
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist
Longish article for those with 15 mins to kill. It's the thoughts of an erstwhile peacenik (specifically, campaigner against Iraq sanctions) on how he & his fellow-peaceniks, with the best of intentions, ended up effectively supporting a brutal and murderous dictator.
Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist
by Charles M. Brown
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2003
Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist
by Charles M. Brown
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2003
Monday, August 15, 2005
MCB Watch - another blog to follow
Just found this blog, dedicated to keeping an eye on the Muslim Council of Britain:
http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/
Some interesting stuff there, for example, a look at the History and Aims of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (man, do they hate Jews!), and how HT relates to the MCB.
http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/
Some interesting stuff there, for example, a look at the History and Aims of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (man, do they hate Jews!), and how HT relates to the MCB.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Thomas L. Friedman
Was telling JP and Andy about interesting interview with Friedman in this month's Playboy. Sadly the interview doesn't seem to be available online, but for those who are interested here's Friedman's home page with access to his NYT articles:
Terrorism caused by Western racism
Naomi Klein argues that racism, not politically correct multi-culturalism is what has created 'home-grown' terrorists. As someone who has posted numerous 'the problem is we're too soft and PC' type articles I thought it was worth sharing this opposing view:
it's not tolerance for multiculturalism that fuels terrorism; it's tolerance for barbarism committed in our name.
Racism is the terrorists' greatest recruitment tool
The problem in Britain is not too much multiculturalism but too little
Naomi Klein
Saturday August 13, 2005
Previous multi-culti post here
it's not tolerance for multiculturalism that fuels terrorism; it's tolerance for barbarism committed in our name.
Racism is the terrorists' greatest recruitment tool
The problem in Britain is not too much multiculturalism but too little
Naomi Klein
Saturday August 13, 2005
Previous multi-culti post here
MCB attacks the BBC...
... while the Observer finds links within the group to extremists.
Muslim leaders in feud with the BBC
Muslim Council official claims Panorama is 'pro-Israel'
Observer investigation reveals group's extremist links
Martin Bright, home affairs editor
By the way, here's a previous (and exhaustive) thread on BBC bias.
Muslim leaders in feud with the BBC
Muslim Council official claims Panorama is 'pro-Israel'
Observer investigation reveals group's extremist links
Martin Bright, home affairs editor
By the way, here's a previous (and exhaustive) thread on BBC bias.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Iraq and Privatisation
I agreed with getting rid of Saddam but feel that things have been badly handled since the take over. Decisions have been made which have encouraged chaos and disorder rather than lessened them. This article by Michael Meacher in the Times gives further food for thought regarding the occupation of Iraq. Maybe I'm being hopelessly naive. What does everyone else think?
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Saddam's germ war plot is traced back to one Oxford cow
I guess we've become so used to the "Saddam had no WMDs" line that it's almost a shock when we're reminded of things like this:
Saddam's germ war plot is traced back to one Oxford cow
Times
August 09, 2005
On the subject of bio-terror I can recommend this book I read recently (though it's not good for sleeping well at night). The description of how smallpox kills you was particularly horrible.
The Demon in the Freezer: The Terrifying Truth About the Threat from Bioterrorism
Richard Preston
The world on a train
I'm in uncharacteristically poetic mode. Found this the other day:
I actually completely disagreed with some parts:
The bit that I liked & caught my attention was this last part:
Maybe some of you ex-literature / ex-art history students can muse intelligently on this!
;-)
The world on a train
Nine years ago, novelist Geoff Ryman wrote a pioneering online novel, 253. It told a tale of the relationships between people who happened to be on a Tube train at the same time. Now, inspired by the varied lives of those who died on 7 July, Ryman offers his thoughts and tribute.
BBC News
09/08/05
I actually completely disagreed with some parts:
I don't believe there are evil people or evil countries ... Everybody has a measure of right on their side and a measure of wrong.
The bit that I liked & caught my attention was this last part:
The philosopher Hannah Arendt concluded that evil lay in the refusal to think. One of the things evil cannot face contemplating is variety. It prefers monolithic simplicity. Reality outstrips simplicity through a constant flowering of unexpected lives. Evil thoughts and deeds cannot prevail against it.
Maybe some of you ex-literature / ex-art history students can muse intelligently on this!
;-)
Why Sharon's critics are clueless on Gaza
Why Sharon's critics are clueless on Gaza
Oliver Kamm
Times
August 09, 2005
Mr Sharon’s policies have been unambiguously successful in curbing terrorism. With the construction of a security barrier (not a “wall”, as anti-Israel campaigners habitually term it, but for most of its length a chain-linked wire fence that could be taken down within an afternoon) and the assassination of successive leaders of Hamas, the number of successful terrorist attacks within Israel fell by more than 75 per cent between 2002 and 2004. The breathing space that these policies have allowed Israelis has encouraged serious thinking about territorial compromise and the outlines of an eventual settlement with the Palestinians.
The dispiriting fact is that no negotiated two-state agreement is likely in the near future. Western commentators who speak of a two-state “solution” adopt a misnomer. A two-state arrangement, with Israel withdrawing to boundaries approximating the pre-1967 armistice line, is not a solution to the conflict, but an outcome of the end of the conflict. The end of the conflict requires something more deep-rooted: a changed relationship and mutual trust between Israelis and Palestinians. As an Israeli analyst, Dan Schueftan, says: “At this stage, it is extremely difficult to imagine how any amount of European funding or sponsorship could produce a mega-gimmick convincing enough to persuade Jews, except in the hard-core Left, to consider a refurbished version of the Oslo act of faith after that failed so miserably.”
This is the context in which Mr Sharon’s plan should be assessed. Israel within its pre-1967 borders was militarily indefensible. After the Six-Day War, in which Israel captured east Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and Sinai, successive governments kept these territories juridically separate from Israel and treated them as bargaining counters for future negotiations. That consensus ended with the election of Likud governments in the late 1970s and 1980s, but since the collapse of negotiations at Camp David and Taba in 2000 and 2001 the political terrain has shifted again.
Israeli leftwingers have had to acknowledge the failure of the peace process established with the Oslo accord of 1993. Mr Sharon became Prime Minister because Yassir Arafat rejected the offer of an independent Palestinian state made at Taba, demanded a “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees — a course incompatible with Israel’s existence as a Jewish state — and declared a second intifada.
Mr Sharon, meanwhile, has taken the Right an important stage on from merely accepting the need for negotiations with the Palestinians, and has acknowledged that what he explicitly terms the “occupation of the West Bank” is untenable for Israel and for the Palestinians. His security measures have reinforced a consensus among Israelis for a strategy of defensive deterrence, withdrawal from settlements in Gaza, and direct negotiations for a Palestinian state. The prerequisites for a final settlement include Israelis’ confidence in the ability of the Palestinian leadership to crack down on terrorism and to make their administration of Gaza a success. Israel will feel secure enough to withdraw to the pre-1967 boundaries only when it no longer believes they are continuously threatened. On any realistic assessment, this will take time.
That is why Gaza is important. Mr Sharon knows that Israeli security is ill-served by the diversion of effort to protect 8,000 Jewish settlers among 1.3 million Palestinians. To the settlers’ anguish, he is evicting them as part of a wider plan to create the conditions for dialogue. The wisest course for politicians outside the region is to cease attacking Mr Sharon for not being able to create peace by fiat. The cause of confidence-building and direct negotiations has never wanted for meddlesome outsiders; it should be given a chance to flourish unaided.
Oliver Kamm
Times
August 09, 2005
Mr Sharon’s policies have been unambiguously successful in curbing terrorism. With the construction of a security barrier (not a “wall”, as anti-Israel campaigners habitually term it, but for most of its length a chain-linked wire fence that could be taken down within an afternoon) and the assassination of successive leaders of Hamas, the number of successful terrorist attacks within Israel fell by more than 75 per cent between 2002 and 2004. The breathing space that these policies have allowed Israelis has encouraged serious thinking about territorial compromise and the outlines of an eventual settlement with the Palestinians.
The dispiriting fact is that no negotiated two-state agreement is likely in the near future. Western commentators who speak of a two-state “solution” adopt a misnomer. A two-state arrangement, with Israel withdrawing to boundaries approximating the pre-1967 armistice line, is not a solution to the conflict, but an outcome of the end of the conflict. The end of the conflict requires something more deep-rooted: a changed relationship and mutual trust between Israelis and Palestinians. As an Israeli analyst, Dan Schueftan, says: “At this stage, it is extremely difficult to imagine how any amount of European funding or sponsorship could produce a mega-gimmick convincing enough to persuade Jews, except in the hard-core Left, to consider a refurbished version of the Oslo act of faith after that failed so miserably.”
This is the context in which Mr Sharon’s plan should be assessed. Israel within its pre-1967 borders was militarily indefensible. After the Six-Day War, in which Israel captured east Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and Sinai, successive governments kept these territories juridically separate from Israel and treated them as bargaining counters for future negotiations. That consensus ended with the election of Likud governments in the late 1970s and 1980s, but since the collapse of negotiations at Camp David and Taba in 2000 and 2001 the political terrain has shifted again.
Israeli leftwingers have had to acknowledge the failure of the peace process established with the Oslo accord of 1993. Mr Sharon became Prime Minister because Yassir Arafat rejected the offer of an independent Palestinian state made at Taba, demanded a “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees — a course incompatible with Israel’s existence as a Jewish state — and declared a second intifada.
Mr Sharon, meanwhile, has taken the Right an important stage on from merely accepting the need for negotiations with the Palestinians, and has acknowledged that what he explicitly terms the “occupation of the West Bank” is untenable for Israel and for the Palestinians. His security measures have reinforced a consensus among Israelis for a strategy of defensive deterrence, withdrawal from settlements in Gaza, and direct negotiations for a Palestinian state. The prerequisites for a final settlement include Israelis’ confidence in the ability of the Palestinian leadership to crack down on terrorism and to make their administration of Gaza a success. Israel will feel secure enough to withdraw to the pre-1967 boundaries only when it no longer believes they are continuously threatened. On any realistic assessment, this will take time.
That is why Gaza is important. Mr Sharon knows that Israeli security is ill-served by the diversion of effort to protect 8,000 Jewish settlers among 1.3 million Palestinians. To the settlers’ anguish, he is evicting them as part of a wider plan to create the conditions for dialogue. The wisest course for politicians outside the region is to cease attacking Mr Sharon for not being able to create peace by fiat. The cause of confidence-building and direct negotiations has never wanted for meddlesome outsiders; it should be given a chance to flourish unaided.
Comprehensives impede social mobility
We haven't had an education thread for a while. Wonder what you guys think of this anti-comprehensives piece?
Schools for a scandal
Tim Luckhurst
Times
August 09, 2005
AMONG THE most infuriating conundrums in Britain is why comprehensive schools still exist when every argument for them has been undermined. The assertion that comprehensivisation would enhance opportunity was tendentious before the experiment was attempted. These days a potent blend of ideological zeal and intellectual dishonesty is required to defend it. A Sutton Trust study for the London School of Economics proves that comprehensives damage social mobility. Before that, research by York University demonstrated the benefits of academic selection for children from low-income families. The evidence from overseas is incontrovertible too. Selection delivers social justice.
Schools for a scandal
Tim Luckhurst
Times
August 09, 2005
AMONG THE most infuriating conundrums in Britain is why comprehensive schools still exist when every argument for them has been undermined. The assertion that comprehensivisation would enhance opportunity was tendentious before the experiment was attempted. These days a potent blend of ideological zeal and intellectual dishonesty is required to defend it. A Sutton Trust study for the London School of Economics proves that comprehensives damage social mobility. Before that, research by York University demonstrated the benefits of academic selection for children from low-income families. The evidence from overseas is incontrovertible too. Selection delivers social justice.
After a fortnight's holiday, I find I'm utterly baffled by the War on Terror
In the same piece Finkelstein also makes some interesting points about Robin Cook, the myth of the consensus against terror, & others.
After a fortnight's holiday, I find I'm utterly baffled by the War on Terror
Daniel Finkelstein
Times
August 10, 2005
The Grieve Paradox:
Apparently, last week, the Shadow Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, said that he thought the London suicide bombings were “totally explicable in terms of the level of anger” of the Muslim community. This was widely portrayed as coming close to justifying the attack. Yet surely, whatever may have been Mr Grieve’s intent, his remarks do nothing of the sort. Or have I misunderstood something?
Mr Grieve’s remarks came at a time when the Home Office Minister Hazel Blears was touring the country listening to the views of the Muslim community. Yet if the Tory MP was correct,this would be a disastrous thing to do.
As the US lawyer Alan Dershowitz points out in his book Why Terrorism Works: “The real root cause of terrorism is that it is successful — terrorists have consistently benefited from their terrorist acts.” The advance of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the 1970s suggests he is right. Thus if the cause of the London bombings was indeed the anger of Muslim youth the last thing one should do is reward it with political concessions.
If, on the other hand, Mr Grieve is wrong and the cause of the terrorism is an unappeasable religious doctrine rather than specific political demands, then efforts to address the political issues that anger Muslim youth would not provide an incentive for terrorists. They can go ahead, based solely on whether they are the right thing to do. There is, therefore, a Grieve Paradox — the more correct he is, the less one should do about it.
After a fortnight's holiday, I find I'm utterly baffled by the War on Terror
Daniel Finkelstein
Times
August 10, 2005
The Grieve Paradox:
Apparently, last week, the Shadow Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, said that he thought the London suicide bombings were “totally explicable in terms of the level of anger” of the Muslim community. This was widely portrayed as coming close to justifying the attack. Yet surely, whatever may have been Mr Grieve’s intent, his remarks do nothing of the sort. Or have I misunderstood something?
Mr Grieve’s remarks came at a time when the Home Office Minister Hazel Blears was touring the country listening to the views of the Muslim community. Yet if the Tory MP was correct,this would be a disastrous thing to do.
As the US lawyer Alan Dershowitz points out in his book Why Terrorism Works: “The real root cause of terrorism is that it is successful — terrorists have consistently benefited from their terrorist acts.” The advance of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the 1970s suggests he is right. Thus if the cause of the London bombings was indeed the anger of Muslim youth the last thing one should do is reward it with political concessions.
If, on the other hand, Mr Grieve is wrong and the cause of the terrorism is an unappeasable religious doctrine rather than specific political demands, then efforts to address the political issues that anger Muslim youth would not provide an incentive for terrorists. They can go ahead, based solely on whether they are the right thing to do. There is, therefore, a Grieve Paradox — the more correct he is, the less one should do about it.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Janet Daley on Multiculturalism
Excellent article - printed in full becauseof Indy's annoying self-destruct policy: (Btw, for ease of reading I haven't added it it to other recent multicultural threads - you can find them here.)
Janet Daley: Integration will take more than a hyphen
Absorbing migrants involves more than taking in strangers and leaving them to it
Published: 10 August 2005
A quick fix for the ethnic problem: as multiculturalism sinks into disrepute, the Home Office offers us hyphens. Alienated Muslims are to be known as Asian-British, plagiarising the American model for incorporating immigrant groups into the national identity. This risible semantic exercise, like multiculturalism itself, is a non-policy: a vacuum, a substitute for thought.
The idea that many cultures could co-exist side by side in one country, going their own ways, cultivating their own disparate and distinct identities, was always a cop-out. It assumed that coming to live in a country was rather like lodging in a rooming-house: new tenants could keep to themselves and do what they liked so long as they didn't make too much noise or block the toilets. How they lived their lives was nobody's business, not even the landlady's.
Well, as we have apparently now realised, being a country that absorbs migrants involves rather more than taking in strangers and leaving them to get on with it. Multiculturalism may have been dressed up as cosmopolitan virtue but, at heart, it was a rationale for not really giving a damn, and a cover for the least attractive British traits - intellectual laziness, indifference to the needs of other people, complacency, and contempt for any sort of energetic commitment to a social ideal.
Well, the serious thinking starts now. The lodgers - or, more to the point, their children - clearly need to be offered a bit more than a key to the front door and a reminder not to leave the landing light on.
Much has been made of this country's failure to give any instruction to incomers on the essentials of Britishness - whatever that is - and the consequent lack of any sense of national identity. Acres of newsprint and hours of broadcasting time have been devoted to producing a defining sense of what it means to be British.
The results have been banal, embarrassing, and pointless. We are, or like to see ourselves as, tolerant, law-abiding, humorous and fair-minded. Yes - and how far does that get us in dealing with cults which actively preach intolerance, urge people to break the most fundamental laws, are deadly serious about their aims and opposed to fairness (that is, social equality) as we understand it?
This failure to inculcate some mysterious core of national pride is being contrasted unfavourably with the practice of my home country. In the United States, it has been noted, waves of immigrants from vastly differing parts of the world have been successfully integrated by a determined, conscious programme of "Americanisation" in the schools and throughout the wider society.
Somehow, the US with its pledge of allegiance and its "civics" lessons, has cracked the problem of inducting people into a more-or-less unified society within one generation. Ah yes, snigger the British, but we don't go in for that sort of thing here. We don't make children rise up every schoolday morning, put their hands on their hearts and pledge allegiance to the flag. No super-patriotism please, we're British.
Sorry, but you've missed the point. American primary schoolchildren may salute the flag and recite the pledge of allegiance, but a few years later, it is the Constitution they learn to revere and its preamble (which begins "We the people") that they memorise.
Their high school civics classes require them to write letters to their congressmen in Washington and to their state senators, to study specific pieces of current legislation whose progress they can follow through Congress, and to campaign or canvass for the party of their choice in elections.
And the politicians to whom they write are all primed to respond in a helpful and generous way, because it is their responsibility, as much as the schools', to educate children in the democratic process. What American children learn, in other words, is not some amorphous concept of "American-ness" but how their system of democracy works, and by implication, what its value is to them and to the nation.
Britain, too, has a system of government and principles of law, such as the independence of the judiciary, which need to be explained to school children (and not just the ones born of immigrant parents) in order to give them some understanding of the part that they should play in their national life if it is to be sustained. It too has institutions and processes that must be participated in, if they are to have meaning.
Feeling alienated from your surroundings generally begins with not understanding them. Curing that is going to take more than a hyphen: it needs national confidence, fervour and concerted effort. All those things that laid-back multiculturalism disdained.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article304859.ece
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Anjem Choudary, ex Al Muhajiroun, interviewed on BBC Hardtalk
I watched the BBC News 24 program Hardtalk last night - an interview with Anjem Choudary, Former UK Head of Al Muhajiroun. Hopefully the interview will come up on the Hardtalk homepage at some point, because I'd urge you all to watch it. Here's the blurb.
The interviewer Stephen Sackur did an ok job under difficult circumstances, I suppose, though I yearn for the day when Paxman is turned loose on these people. I would like to have seen Sackur make a lot more of the remark (re: the London 7/7 bombings) that no non-Muslim can be considered "innocent". I'd also like to see Choudary asked, given that he utterly rejects British law & the British state and recognises only Sharia, on what grounds he & those sharing this viewpoint should have *any* rights whatsoever in this country - for example, the right not to be shot on sight by the police.
Choudary is certainly a charismatic, articulate person, with utter certainty in his views, and the politician's art of being uninterruptable. I'm torn as to whether such media exposure is a good thing (give them enough rope...) or bad (would we have give Hitler air time?). Certainly Pipes has some interesting views on this:
Television in Time of War
Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
August 2, 2005
JP
PS There *is* an older Hardtalk interview with Choudary from May 2003 which I haven't seen myself that is available for download:
Hardtalk - Suicide Attacks - May 2003
The interviewer Stephen Sackur did an ok job under difficult circumstances, I suppose, though I yearn for the day when Paxman is turned loose on these people. I would like to have seen Sackur make a lot more of the remark (re: the London 7/7 bombings) that no non-Muslim can be considered "innocent". I'd also like to see Choudary asked, given that he utterly rejects British law & the British state and recognises only Sharia, on what grounds he & those sharing this viewpoint should have *any* rights whatsoever in this country - for example, the right not to be shot on sight by the police.
Choudary is certainly a charismatic, articulate person, with utter certainty in his views, and the politician's art of being uninterruptable. I'm torn as to whether such media exposure is a good thing (give them enough rope...) or bad (would we have give Hitler air time?). Certainly Pipes has some interesting views on this:
Television in Time of War
Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
August 2, 2005
JP
PS There *is* an older Hardtalk interview with Choudary from May 2003 which I haven't seen myself that is available for download:
Hardtalk - Suicide Attacks - May 2003
Monday, August 08, 2005
Mosques 'failing to protect young from extremism'
This is definitely in the "you couldn't make this up" league.
Mosques 'failing to protect young from extremism'
Telegraph
08/08/2005
Mosques across the country are failing to confront the threat of extremism in young people and many do not believe it is their responsibility to do so, according to a poll. A survey of 100 mosques by a Muslim lobby group showed that no steps had been taken to challenge radical preaching to youths, and that none were planned.
[O]f the 100 mosques contacted by Mpac [Muslim Public Affairs Committee], none had changed their teaching syllabus or set up programmes to challenge extremism, the group said. Asked what they had done to help channel Muslim anger about British foreign policy away from extremism, a fifth said the Friday sermon was being used to condemn radical preaching and terrorist action. But Asghar Bukhari, 35, the head of Mpac, said: "[A speech] is the most incompetent way that a mosque could challenge extremism. It is like a doctor telling a patient not to smoke - it won't cure the illness. The very institutions that could make the most difference are refusing to help. That is a disgrace."
...
Dr Musharraf Hussain, 47, who represents two mosques in Nottingham, said he did not intend to confront any evil ideology "head-on", as the Prime Minister suggested. "I have absolutely no plans whatsoever. If the Government wants us to become a secret service, or their stooges, they will have to pay us for it. The reason the youngsters are angry is because of Tony Blair's foreign policy, so I think it is very unfair to suggest that we should bear the whole responsibility for that."
Aurangzaib Khan, who works for the Pakistan Centre in Nottingham, which is also used for prayers, said: "The problem is being caused by the Government, so they should solve it rather than throwing it on to the community. They look for so-called leaders, but if anything happens in the white community they don't look for leaders. Are they going to pay people to be outreach workers?".
Dilwar Khan, director of the East London mosque, said: "It is not our responsibility to go and search these people out [extremists or their targets]." He said the mosque had preached against radicals for a long time. "As far as we are concerned we don't have to do anything more."
Mr Atta Choudhri, the chairman of Manchester Central Mosque, said: "How can we take responsibility for all the youngsters? We will try our best, but youngsters don't listen to anybody."
Mosques 'failing to protect young from extremism'
Telegraph
08/08/2005
Mosques across the country are failing to confront the threat of extremism in young people and many do not believe it is their responsibility to do so, according to a poll. A survey of 100 mosques by a Muslim lobby group showed that no steps had been taken to challenge radical preaching to youths, and that none were planned.
[O]f the 100 mosques contacted by Mpac [Muslim Public Affairs Committee], none had changed their teaching syllabus or set up programmes to challenge extremism, the group said. Asked what they had done to help channel Muslim anger about British foreign policy away from extremism, a fifth said the Friday sermon was being used to condemn radical preaching and terrorist action. But Asghar Bukhari, 35, the head of Mpac, said: "[A speech] is the most incompetent way that a mosque could challenge extremism. It is like a doctor telling a patient not to smoke - it won't cure the illness. The very institutions that could make the most difference are refusing to help. That is a disgrace."
...
Dr Musharraf Hussain, 47, who represents two mosques in Nottingham, said he did not intend to confront any evil ideology "head-on", as the Prime Minister suggested. "I have absolutely no plans whatsoever. If the Government wants us to become a secret service, or their stooges, they will have to pay us for it. The reason the youngsters are angry is because of Tony Blair's foreign policy, so I think it is very unfair to suggest that we should bear the whole responsibility for that."
Aurangzaib Khan, who works for the Pakistan Centre in Nottingham, which is also used for prayers, said: "The problem is being caused by the Government, so they should solve it rather than throwing it on to the community. They look for so-called leaders, but if anything happens in the white community they don't look for leaders. Are they going to pay people to be outreach workers?".
Dilwar Khan, director of the East London mosque, said: "It is not our responsibility to go and search these people out [extremists or their targets]." He said the mosque had preached against radicals for a long time. "As far as we are concerned we don't have to do anything more."
Mr Atta Choudhri, the chairman of Manchester Central Mosque, said: "How can we take responsibility for all the youngsters? We will try our best, but youngsters don't listen to anybody."
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Why Israel is gaining new friends
Read the opinion piece below in the weekend FT. Would be interested to get JP's take on it.
Why Israel is gaining friends
By Christopher Caldwell
FT
August 6 2005
Thursday's atrocity in the Israeli-Arab town of Shfaram - where an army deserter shot four Arabs dead on a bus before being lynched - is the worst act of anti-Arab terrorism by an Israeli since 1994. It is also looks like the most violent act of resistance yet against the plan by Ariel Sharon, prime minister, to remove all 8,000 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip by mid-August. Mr Sharon condemned the outrage as "a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist". But there was no rush in the international media to blame Israel's government or society for it, of the sort one would have expected during the "second intifada" that began in 2000.
This is a sea change. On Mr Sharon's watch, without anyone really noticing, Israel has become more firmly anchored in the good graces of world opinion than at any time this decade. As Mr Sharon sought to stem the Palestinian suicide-bombing campaign in the spring of 2002, he was not merely condemned for excesses or derided as a crafty operator. Mobs of demonstrators, many journalists and even several European politicians compared him, without irony, to the leaders of Nazi Germany. What has changed? Has Mr Sharon undergone a conversion? Or were Israel's detractors of three years ago simply wrong?
Nowhere have attitudes towards Israel shifted more dramatically than in France. Mr Sharon was frostily received by Jacques Chirac, the French president, during his first visit to Paris in early 2001. The years since have been marked by contretemps. Back when he was foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin (France's present prime minister) insisted on treating Yassir Arafat, the former Palestinian leader, as a reliable negotiating partner for peace. Mr Sharon urged French Jews to emigrate to Israel in the light of high levels of anti-semitic violence and intimidation.
And yet, during a pomp-filled three-day visit to Paris last month, Mr Sharon had productive meetings with Mr Chirac, Mr de Villepin and Philippe Douste-Blazy, the new foreign minister. Mr Chirac announced a €1m (£695,000) campaign to improve the image of France in Israel. France, he said, hoped to become Israel's "special partner, in politics, economics and culture". Mr Sharon, for his part, invited Mr Chirac to his ranch, praising the "firm battle he is waging against anti-Semitism", and describing French efforts in that area as a "model".
There are many reasons why France might cultivate, or accept, a closer relationship with Israel just now. Arafat is dead. Iran's nuclear programme has proved as much a diplomatic headache for France as for Israel and its Middle Eastern neighbours. Alleged Syrian involvement in the assassination last spring of Mr Chirac's close friend, Rafiq Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, may bring France and Israel's views of Syria into closer harmony. In general, as Le Figaro put it: "France understands the risk of being shut out of the diplomatic game in the Middle East if it is not listened to by Israel."
Both Mr Chirac and Mr Sharon gave a simpler reason for their newfound amity: Gaza. "If anyone had a doubt about Israel's stature in Europe and the world", Mr Sharon told the Israeli press, "this meeting proved that Israel's reputation is good and it's all because of disengagement." Mr Chirac praised Mr Sharon for his courage in undertaking the withdrawal. Should we believe their protestations?
Probably not. Mr Sharon has been able to manage his own party's opposition to his Gaza plan only with difficulty. He has an incentive to use any political chip to sell the plan domestically. And if Mr Chirac is supporting the Gaza pull-out as a bold step, it is a big change from just a year ago, when much of the French foreign policy establishment were treating it as a ruse. In Mr Sharon's hands, the explanation ran, Gaza First could mean Gaza Only, with no provision made for withdrawing Israeli forces and settlers from the West Bank.
The real reason that Israel has been readmitted to the family of western nations reflects ill on the west. It is that, for years, western public opinion blamed Israel for the violence committed against it. As the violence abated, so did the blame. The American essayist Paul Berman, in Terror and Liberalism, was the first to notice that "the suicide bombings produced a philosophical crisis among everyone around the world who wanted to believe that a rational logic governs the world". Suicide bombing had to be about an unbearable injustice. If not, it was a mere homicidal cult - an unbearable thought. Under the slipshod moral reasoning that resulted, the more Israelis the bombers killed, and the more they did it, the more public opinion shifted against Israel. Americans and Britons have recently grown familiar with the carping of those more interested in the "causes" of terrorism than in terrorism itself.
So when Israel clamped down on the West Bank and Gaza, "something curious happened", Mr Berman writes. "As the Palestinian situation grew more desperate, the wave of protest around the world, instead of growing, began to recede . . . The protests rose and fell around the world in tandem with the suicide bomb attacks, and not in tandem with the suffering of the Palestinian people."
Time has vindicated Mr Berman's view. Israelis are today being attacked less in opinion columns because they are being attacked less on buses and in discotheques. They are less victimised by suicide terrorists largely because Mr Sharon's government built a physical barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories, in the teeth of western opposition. Mr Sharon has behaved as if foreigners will despise Israel if it shows patience and forgiveness and will befriend Israel if it disobeys their urgings. His world view may look topsy-turvy, and it can be condemned as paranoid in a time of peace. It has been proved correct in a time of war.
The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard
Why Israel is gaining friends
By Christopher Caldwell
FT
August 6 2005
Thursday's atrocity in the Israeli-Arab town of Shfaram - where an army deserter shot four Arabs dead on a bus before being lynched - is the worst act of anti-Arab terrorism by an Israeli since 1994. It is also looks like the most violent act of resistance yet against the plan by Ariel Sharon, prime minister, to remove all 8,000 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip by mid-August. Mr Sharon condemned the outrage as "a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist". But there was no rush in the international media to blame Israel's government or society for it, of the sort one would have expected during the "second intifada" that began in 2000.
This is a sea change. On Mr Sharon's watch, without anyone really noticing, Israel has become more firmly anchored in the good graces of world opinion than at any time this decade. As Mr Sharon sought to stem the Palestinian suicide-bombing campaign in the spring of 2002, he was not merely condemned for excesses or derided as a crafty operator. Mobs of demonstrators, many journalists and even several European politicians compared him, without irony, to the leaders of Nazi Germany. What has changed? Has Mr Sharon undergone a conversion? Or were Israel's detractors of three years ago simply wrong?
Nowhere have attitudes towards Israel shifted more dramatically than in France. Mr Sharon was frostily received by Jacques Chirac, the French president, during his first visit to Paris in early 2001. The years since have been marked by contretemps. Back when he was foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin (France's present prime minister) insisted on treating Yassir Arafat, the former Palestinian leader, as a reliable negotiating partner for peace. Mr Sharon urged French Jews to emigrate to Israel in the light of high levels of anti-semitic violence and intimidation.
And yet, during a pomp-filled three-day visit to Paris last month, Mr Sharon had productive meetings with Mr Chirac, Mr de Villepin and Philippe Douste-Blazy, the new foreign minister. Mr Chirac announced a €1m (£695,000) campaign to improve the image of France in Israel. France, he said, hoped to become Israel's "special partner, in politics, economics and culture". Mr Sharon, for his part, invited Mr Chirac to his ranch, praising the "firm battle he is waging against anti-Semitism", and describing French efforts in that area as a "model".
There are many reasons why France might cultivate, or accept, a closer relationship with Israel just now. Arafat is dead. Iran's nuclear programme has proved as much a diplomatic headache for France as for Israel and its Middle Eastern neighbours. Alleged Syrian involvement in the assassination last spring of Mr Chirac's close friend, Rafiq Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, may bring France and Israel's views of Syria into closer harmony. In general, as Le Figaro put it: "France understands the risk of being shut out of the diplomatic game in the Middle East if it is not listened to by Israel."
Both Mr Chirac and Mr Sharon gave a simpler reason for their newfound amity: Gaza. "If anyone had a doubt about Israel's stature in Europe and the world", Mr Sharon told the Israeli press, "this meeting proved that Israel's reputation is good and it's all because of disengagement." Mr Chirac praised Mr Sharon for his courage in undertaking the withdrawal. Should we believe their protestations?
Probably not. Mr Sharon has been able to manage his own party's opposition to his Gaza plan only with difficulty. He has an incentive to use any political chip to sell the plan domestically. And if Mr Chirac is supporting the Gaza pull-out as a bold step, it is a big change from just a year ago, when much of the French foreign policy establishment were treating it as a ruse. In Mr Sharon's hands, the explanation ran, Gaza First could mean Gaza Only, with no provision made for withdrawing Israeli forces and settlers from the West Bank.
The real reason that Israel has been readmitted to the family of western nations reflects ill on the west. It is that, for years, western public opinion blamed Israel for the violence committed against it. As the violence abated, so did the blame. The American essayist Paul Berman, in Terror and Liberalism, was the first to notice that "the suicide bombings produced a philosophical crisis among everyone around the world who wanted to believe that a rational logic governs the world". Suicide bombing had to be about an unbearable injustice. If not, it was a mere homicidal cult - an unbearable thought. Under the slipshod moral reasoning that resulted, the more Israelis the bombers killed, and the more they did it, the more public opinion shifted against Israel. Americans and Britons have recently grown familiar with the carping of those more interested in the "causes" of terrorism than in terrorism itself.
So when Israel clamped down on the West Bank and Gaza, "something curious happened", Mr Berman writes. "As the Palestinian situation grew more desperate, the wave of protest around the world, instead of growing, began to recede . . . The protests rose and fell around the world in tandem with the suicide bomb attacks, and not in tandem with the suffering of the Palestinian people."
Time has vindicated Mr Berman's view. Israelis are today being attacked less in opinion columns because they are being attacked less on buses and in discotheques. They are less victimised by suicide terrorists largely because Mr Sharon's government built a physical barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories, in the teeth of western opposition. Mr Sharon has behaved as if foreigners will despise Israel if it shows patience and forgiveness and will befriend Israel if it disobeys their urgings. His world view may look topsy-turvy, and it can be condemned as paranoid in a time of peace. It has been proved correct in a time of war.
The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard
seven ways to stop the terror
An article by Jason Burke in the Observer this Sunday. For me, it's the most intelligent piece on how we can stop the terrorists.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Johann says multiculturalism isn't working
Essential reading:
Multiculturalism is not the best way to welcome people to our country
It promotes not a melting pot but a segregated society of sealed off cultures, each sticking to its own.
by Johann Hari
[...]
[Johann quotes an email he received] "My younger sisters go to Denbigh High School [in Luton] which was famous in the headlines last year because a girl pupil went to the High Court for her right to wear the jilbab [a long body-length shroud]. Shabinah [the girl who took the case] saw it as a great victory for Muslim women ... but what happened next shows this is not a victory for us.
"My sisters, and me when I was younger, could always tell our dad and uncles that we weren't allowed to wear the jilbab. Once the rules were changed, that excuse was not possible any more so my sisters have now been terrified into wearing this cumbersome and dehumanising garment all day against their wishes. Now most girls in the school do the same. They don't want to, but now they cannot resist community pressure ... I am frightened somebody is going to fight for the right to wear a burqa next and then my sisters will not even be able to show their faces."
So to multiculturalists, we have to ask: which Muslim culture do you want to preserve? The jilbab-wearing culture of Shabinah and the mullahs, or the culture of the hundreds of Muslim girls who curse them? All immigrant communities are divided and diverse; it is a form of soft racism to assume they have One Culture that should be respected at all costs.
Good stuff throughout. If you're interested in this topic it's worth looking at a couple of earlier posts on the subject:
http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/07/ee-begum.html
http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/07/multi-culturism-and-dangers-of.html
Multiculturalism is not the best way to welcome people to our country
It promotes not a melting pot but a segregated society of sealed off cultures, each sticking to its own.
by Johann Hari
[...]
[Johann quotes an email he received] "My younger sisters go to Denbigh High School [in Luton] which was famous in the headlines last year because a girl pupil went to the High Court for her right to wear the jilbab [a long body-length shroud]. Shabinah [the girl who took the case] saw it as a great victory for Muslim women ... but what happened next shows this is not a victory for us.
"My sisters, and me when I was younger, could always tell our dad and uncles that we weren't allowed to wear the jilbab. Once the rules were changed, that excuse was not possible any more so my sisters have now been terrified into wearing this cumbersome and dehumanising garment all day against their wishes. Now most girls in the school do the same. They don't want to, but now they cannot resist community pressure ... I am frightened somebody is going to fight for the right to wear a burqa next and then my sisters will not even be able to show their faces."
So to multiculturalists, we have to ask: which Muslim culture do you want to preserve? The jilbab-wearing culture of Shabinah and the mullahs, or the culture of the hundreds of Muslim girls who curse them? All immigrant communities are divided and diverse; it is a form of soft racism to assume they have One Culture that should be respected at all costs.
Good stuff throughout. If you're interested in this topic it's worth looking at a couple of earlier posts on the subject:
http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/07/ee-begum.html
http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/07/multi-culturism-and-dangers-of.html
Two Israel stories: (i) Israeli lynched (ii) Israeli jailed
Two stories about Israel attracted my attention. The more recent one about the Israeli who went beserk, shot up Israeli Arabs on a bus, then got lynched, is interesting for the immediate unambiguous condemnation from Sharon, which labelled the guy a "terrorist". What do people think about that?
The older story was interesting for the lack of coverage it got in the press (let me know if I'm wrong about that). If that is the case, I wonder if it's because the Israeli in question was an Israeli Arab...
Israeli lynched after bus killing
BBC NEWS
04/08/05
A teenaged Israeli gunman has been lynched after killing four people on a bus in an Israeli Arab town. The man, said to be wearing an army uniform and a Jewish skull cap, opened fire on pasengers as the bus was passing through Shfaram near Haifa.
Several people were injured, some seriously. A furious mob killed the gunman as police were leading him away. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called the incident a reprehensible act by a "bloodthirsty terrorist". "This terror incident is a deliberate attempt to harm the relations between the citizens of Israel," he said through his office. "Terror between civilians is the most dangerous thing for the future of Israel and its democratic stability."
Israeli guilty of shooting Briton
BBC News
27 June, 2005
A former Israeli soldier has been found guilty of the manslaughter of British student Tom Hurndall in the Gaza Strip. Ex-sergeant Taysir Hayb was convicted at a military court in Ashkelon for the shooting of Mr Hurndall in April 2003. Hayb will be sentenced at a later date.
Mr Hurndall, 22, was involved in protests against the Israeli military in the Palestinian town of Rafah. He died nine months after the shooting. His father, Anthony, said the Israeli army acted with impunity too often. The defendant was led out of the court in handcuffs and tried to attack a number of photographers and cameramen filming him.
...
In addition to the manslaughter verdict, Hayb was found guilty of obstruction of justice, incitement to false testimony, false testimony and improper conduct. ... The Israeli army initially disputed this account, but under pressure from Mr Hurndall's family and the British government it ordered a full investigation. It later indicted Hayb, a member of Israel's Bedouin Arab minority.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Fanatics around the world dream of the Caliph's return
If you're ever looking for a quick one-page summary of jihadi history and aims, you could do worse than this:
Fanatics around the world dream of the Caliph's return
Telegraph
01/08/2005
Fanatics around the world dream of the Caliph's return
Telegraph
01/08/2005
Monday, August 01, 2005
Fanaticism and Religion
An article on religion from Niall Ferguson. It raises some interesting questions and is relevant to a recent comparison JP made between the moral certainty of the Christian right with the uncertainty of liberal secular left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)