These are all the Blogs posted on Thursday, 15, 2012.
Thursday, 15 November 2012
Labour makes last-minute dash to hold off Respect and BNP in Rotherham
Labour MPs and an army of volunteers have been dispatched to Rotherham to try to keep hold of the seat in the forthcoming byelection. The seat was vacated by Denis MacShane after his resignation over his expenses fraud. There are fears that George Galloway's Respect party could profit from disarray in the Labour camp following mass walkouts from members furious at being denied a "local" candidate. . . after around 80 members, including several dozen councillors, stormed out in protest on Tuesday night. They were unhappy at the two-woman shortlist of "out-of-towners" imposed by the party's national executive committee.
John Healey, MP for neighbouring Wentworth, who was at Tuesday's shambolic selection meeting, admitted: "It was a very, very difficult meeting. The party members felt very strongly, had a very strong point to make, and made it very effectively. But the fact was, we had to finish the evening with a Labour candidate. We are not going to leave the field in Rotherham open with the EDL and their political wing [the EDL are rumoured to be fielding an independent candidate], the BNP, Ukip and Respect."
Local Labour members wanted a chance to vote for their preferred local candidate on 29 November, Rotherham town councillor Mahroof Hussain, who was rejected by the NEC. The official line is that Hussain was not chosen because the party needed a "clean break" in a constituency damaged by both MacShane's dodgy accounting and the child sex grooming scandal, where authorities, including departments of the Labour council, were accused of turning a blind eye to crimes committed mostly by British-Pakistani Muslims.
A Labour insider in London said Hussain was deemed too much of a risk in a constituency being targeted by the BNP on the grooming issue. The BNP polled 10.4% of the vote in the 2010 general election. MacShane won 44.6%, with a majority of over 10,000.
The election is in two weeks. The Respect party candidate is Yvonne Ridley. Watch this space.
MUSLIM leaders have described comments from a Yorkshire MP as “insulting” and “deeply offensive” after he targeted the Muslim community for criticism over recent child grooming scandals.
Speaking during a debate on child sexual exploitation in the Commons, Mr Hopkins acknowledged most child abusers were white but added that “we should not get away from the fact that gangs of Muslim men are going round and raping white kids at this moment in time”.
Mr Hopkins said questions needed to be asked why some Muslim youths carried an attitude that women were inferior which, he said, was a result of their upbringing.
“I want to consider the way boys live in those households,” he said. “I am afraid they are little princes: they can do nothing wrong, their behaviour is not challenged and eventually that can manifest itself.
“In one instance outside Bradford University Muslim men patrolled the streets verbally abusing women and girls all the time.
“Rather than the community of peers challenging that behaviour, we had to have a specific intervention to stop that sexual abuse of women.”
On girls being brought to Britain as brides, he said: “One reason which I think plays out is that women from Pakistan are subservient. They do not speak English or understand the values and freedoms that a girl born over her may live by. It is more convenient for a man to have a subservient woman in his household. They are not equal citizens.”
Mr Hopkins then went on to accuse some elders in Keighley mosques of “unacceptable” behaviour towards children – citing an example of an Imam who kicked and beat children.
The MP said his predecessor, Ann Cryer, had been right when she previously spoke out on grooming and added: “The victimhood that ran through the community gave an excuse for not facing up to the problem. I went to lots of public events to discuss the issue, but all I heard was that Ann’s constant comments undermined the community. The community failed to face up to the core issues that Ann was putting out there. The reality is that the problem has not gone away. Ann Cryer was right. Since that time, many more children have been abused because of the failures of the agencies and of the communities to address what was happening.”
But Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, said Mr Hopkins had adopted a broad-brush which unfairly maligned all Muslims. “To suggest all Muslims are going round raping white girls is deeply offensive,”
Bary Malik, external affairs spokesman for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association in Bradford, said Mr Hopkins’ comments showed he was “ignorant” of the community within his own Keighley constituency. “It’s insulting. People will be thinking if you go to Keighley you will find gangs of Muslim men ready to rape white women.”
Mr Hopkins drew a direct connection between Muslim men grooming girls and how he perceived women were “treated and valued by Muslim men”.
He said: “I want to challenge the behaviour that says, ‘I embrace and honour my family, my grandmother, my mother and my sister; you are my blood, I love you and I have great affection for you,’ when that passion, love and affection does not address the inequalities those women and girls have to endure. Fundamentally, there is a sexist behaviour by some Muslim men towards women. We talk about institutions and commissions and all the rest of it. Fundamentally, as leaders, we need to challenge the behaviour that is going on. They are part of British society, but there is behaviour that is unacceptable.”
Mr Hopkins concluded his speech by saying: “I want people in my town to be successful, but they must understand the values that we live by.”
Mr Hopkins was not available to comment yesterday but in a letter to the Telegraph & Argus, he said: “There has been a significant response to many of the points I made. I particularly welcome the acknowledgement from the Bradford Council of Mosques that there is a problem and I hope they will work with me and others in the community to map out an agreed way forward. Like Ann Cryer before me, I did not want to have to make the speech I did, but a proper and open debate is now under way. Most mainstream politicians have failed to address these issues, thereby handing racists in the BNP a grubby opportunity to fill the void."
Swedish press reticent to describe 'honour' murder in those terms.
The Local mentions enough about this murder that an intelligent reader can work out the motive. According to the comments the Swedish language newspapers are being much more vague.
A 17-year-old boy in southern Sweden was charged on Wednesday with the murder of his 19-year-old sister, who died in April after being stabbed more than 100 times with two knives and a pair of scissors.
Prosecutor Magnus Larsson told the gathered press at a meeting on Wednesday that the boy denies the allegations against him and claims that the girl sustained the injuries from a masked perpetrator. Police have so far not been able to come up with a motive for the brutal attack. “In the press there have been speculations into some sort of honour motive,” said Larsson adding that police had found no evidence supporting that theory.
The young woman had been in touch with the social services in Landskrona, in Skåne county,for some time due to threats and violence from her family.
The girl had sought help from the Swedish authorities as early as 2009. The Swedish foreign ministry had been in contact with the social services after the girl had left a forced marriage abroad and was returning to her mother in Sweden.
However, according to the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen), the social services didn’t follow up on the young woman’s situation after she returned to Sweden. Neither did the agency look into the matter when the brother, now facing murder charges, arrived in Landskrona the following year.
At least the local is covering it., the same cannot be said for Expressen, Aftonbladet and co. You'd think an innocent young woman being murdered brutally by her brother on religious grounds would be the top story in a relatively peaceful nation. But no, apparently the biggest story of the day is that a drunk little-known politician said some bad words...
The murdering pos was just 16 when he murdered his sister, so he'll get off with probation. You just know that the pos family sent him over here to commit the murder knowing he would never have to face much of a penalty
Perhaps the police should read the account printed here by the local as they have better evidence, that it was in fact an honour thing as outlined in subsequent paragraphs! therefore the police are idiots or the local has better investigative and deductive powers! if the cry for help from landskrona don't let the cat out of the bag the returning from an arranged marriage sure does!
Not much to correct in Peter Mullen's Telegraph piece. I notice that he is taking a leaf out of my book and correcting the name of the BBC:
I have just been reading the latest bulletin from the Hamas Propaganda Bureau – sorry, I mean of course the BBC – who inform us that Israeli forces have killed “ … eleven Palestinians, mainly militants, but also children.” The general tone of the report makes it sound as if the Israel Defence Force set out wantonly to begin a new massacre of the innocents. Regrettably, children will be killed if they have to share their schools with rockets and stashes of high explosives. The truth is that Israel’s military strikes were belated retaliation for the Hamas bombardment by 800 rockets this year and 120 during the last week.
The entire population of southern Israel lives in constant terror. And if we’re talking about the suffering of children, imagine what it’s like to be a little boy or girl in small southern towns and villages such as Sderot, where they have half a minute’s warning to sprint to the air-raid shelters, and where the schools are closed for weeks at a time. I haven’t been to southern Israel, but I have visited the north, near the border with Lebanon, on days when Hizbollah were firing Katyusha rockets at the civilian population. To have to live under such a threat is to know the meaning of terror.
The recent increase in violence was provoked by the Israelis’ killing of Ahmed Said Khalil Jabari, military leader of Hamas: a man complicit in the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Shalit and responsible for most of the terrorist acts launched from Gaza over the last 10 years. He himself once boasted that the men under his control were responsible for the deaths of 569 Israeli civilians. Yesterday this dead terrorist was praised by the leaders of Hizbollah and declared a martyr by representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
These recent eruptions of violence are of course only the latest in a long war of attrition which has been going on since the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948. The country is surrounded by its enemies. Four times since 1948 these enemies have made war on Israel.
No doubt the Palestinianslocal Muslim Arabs have legitimate grievances against their own government, coupled with spurious territorial aspirations. Israel has generally understoodgiven into these grievances demands, and time and again tried to meet its opponents halfway. For instance, I remember the talks between Yasser Arafat and the Israeli prime minister brokered by the US in which the sides came close to a two-state solution to the problem. Arafat smiled agreeably, got on the plane back to the Middle East and immediately declared a second intifada, a violent uprising against Israel.
That was his only possible course of action as a true Muslim.
To be sure, this is a labyrinthine mess, but beyond the ceaseless argy-bargy there is one real and pressing question: wouldn’t any sovereign state take strong action in response to the relentless terror meted out to its civilian population?
Of course they would, and a lot more besides. Specifically, do any pro-"Palestinian" Britons know about the bombing of Dresden?
The 2012 election results convinced me that we—Conservatives—are in the minority, at least among those who voted this year. It did not, however, convince me that Big Brother socialism and more government will solve our problems at home; and it did not convince me that US weakness and pandering to our enemies will solve our problems abroad. While, like so many of us, I went into a bit of a shell after the vote and avoided politics and partisanship; events are unfolding too fast and too deadly to let us pretend that they have nothing to do with what happened on Tuesday, November 6.
While an estimated 69 percent of American Jews voted for President Barack Obama, only 14 percent of Americans in Israel did, according to at least one poll that closely mirrors most estimates. My Israeli sources and several published comments made it clear that after Obama’s re-election, Israelis understood that they could no longer consider the United States the reliable ally it once was. Not much more than a week later, the Middle East is in flames and the fire is expected to get worse.
The chattering class will say it happened because Israel took out Hamas’s top military commander, Ahmed al- Jabari; but that came only after the terror group caused thousands of rockets to rain down on Southern Israeli, endangering millions of civilians. Israel is not the cause, we are; specifically, our actions on Election Day emboldened our enemies. Nothing changed on the ground. There was no expansion of Jewish communities, disparagingly called “settlements” by our enemies and those whom Lenin would call “useful idiots.” There was no breakdown of peace talks. Prior to Israel’s defensive, surgical strike in Gaza, there was no Israeli military action. The only change came in the form of a green light from American voters.
Yesterday, terrorist rockets killed a young Israeli couple and a third person. The same cast of Obama, Clinton, and the lot who have been “outraged” and “livid” when Israelis decide to build homes have been reserved or silent. This is the same crew that waxed on mercilessly about how angry a YouTube video made them because it insulted Islam. But over the murder of innocent Israelis, they are content to let the UN take the lead knowing the likely outcome.
What signal does that send our enemies—and we are not even at the start of Obama’s second term? What signal does that send our friends?
Those whose bent is to blame the Israelis for events like these, truth be damned, should turn their attention to another part of the world: Bangladesh. For years, I have been railing against the rise of radical Islam in a country that people still love to call moderate. For years, I have been documenting the government’s involvement in oppressing Hindus and other non-Muslims. For years, I have been writing about how a weak United States is causing people on the fence there to opt for the Islamists. For years, I have warned that a strong United States is the only possible break on those atrocities and on Bangladesh threatening to become a base for anti-India jihad.
Salam Azad is an author out on bail after this “moderate Muslim country” charged him with blasphemy for a book he wrote years ago in India. I have been working with him and periodically check on his well-being. Eight days after Obama’s re-election, he said in response: “If democracy will survive in Bangladesh, I and my family should almost [be] save[d]. But past few days Muslim fundamentalist and their partners hits on police and common people. Many police man and common people wounded by them. I don't know the future of my country. Without democratic Institution people could not survive here. Especially minorities, secular and democracy lover people are not surviving.”
That’s not Israel’s fault; and it’s not Bush’s fault. It is our own.
Salafi Sheikh Murgan Salem IOf Egypt Wants To Destroy Pyramids, Sphinx, And Everything Else "Idolatrous"
But he is willing to let Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians continue to live in the Abode of Islam just as long as they pay the Jizyah.
He is, in other words, a man who takes his Islam straight up, not on the rocks. He's a good Muslim, not a bad one. He takes Islammic doctrine fully to heart, and is unafraid to support, and publicly to state, what Islam teaches. He doesn't care what the Infidels think, and he's unwilling to hide or modify or camouflage the teachings of Islam, or the logical result of what Islam teaches. Listen to him -- an honest Muslim, spouting the doctrine that Muhammad, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, spouted.
You can see him -- it's #3636 in the MEMRI offerings -- here.
Speaking on background this week, a senior Israeli official said that the threat of conventional war against Israel had fallen sharply due to instability in the Arab world.
The official predicted that the twenty-two members of the Arab League would split into 28 to 30 countries during the next five years as the so-called Arab Spring turns out to be an “Islamist winter.” Those who expected a democratic resurgence after the Arab revolts of 2011, he argued, “have no understanding of history and no understanding of the social circumstances of Arab countries. It isn’t like Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism. Eastern Europe had the experience of democracy between the wars, and it also had a great culture. Above all, it didn’t have a political religion dedicated to conquest.”
What the official characterized as “the implosion of the Arab world” would make it much harder for Arab countries to mount a conventional threat against the Jewish state, he said. “Between the alternative of having our enemies divided or united, we prefer to have them divided,” he added. “The states put together after World War I by Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot won’t hold together. We are finding out that Arab countries aren’t really countries in the first place. Libya turns out to be not a country, but a collection of 140 tribes. And we hardly need talk about what is happening in Syria.”
He added, “The clout of the Arab League is falling, and Arab oil is becoming less important.” After the 1967 war, he observed, the Arabs consoled themselves for their defeat by asserting that time was on their side. “Now, no-one can say that time is on the side of the Arabs. They are in danger of disintegration. Time is on nobody’s side. Time is on the side of whoever prepares best for the future.”
UCC Minister Enlists Help of Anti-Semitic Publication to Get Message Out
Peter Makari, Executive for the Middle East and Europe of the Common Global Ministries Board of the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (Photo: Dexter Van Zile)
It just gets worse and worse.
On Oct. 5, 2012, a group of 15 Christian leaders issued a letter to Congress. The letter called on lawmakers to investigate Israel for its alleged violation of U.S. law concerning foreign aid. The letter, which was filled with propagandistic tropes, did not ask lawmakers to investigate Egypt for its human rights violations.
The letter was bad enough. But what was even worse was an irresponsible decision by Rev. Dr. Peter Makari, area executive for Europe and the Middle East for the Common Global Ministries of the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ.
In response, the Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a press release calling for Makari’s ouster. The release includes the following details:
American Free Press (AFP) is regarded as the successor to the now defunct Liberty Lobby’s Spotlight. Willis Carto, one of America’s most notorious racists, is a founder of both. Carto is also the founder of the Holocaust-denying Institute For Historical Review. Some of the books that have been offered for sale by the AFP include The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within (details governmental infiltration of the American nationalist movement at the behest of “the alien force of international political Zionism”), The Conspiracy of the Six-Pointed Star, El Sicario: The Autobiography of a Mexican Assassin, and March of the Titans: A History of the White Race. The AFP site includes this quote in one of their essays: “Israel…is contributing to the unification and activation of the colored world for war against the colonial and other outsiders.”
CAMERA spoke with the UCC’s press office to see if it would be offering an official response to the Wiesenthal Center’s challenge. No.
UCC Communications specialist Emily Mullins stated that Makari, (an ordained UCC minister), was not speaking on behalf of the denomination, but on behalf of the 15 religious leaders who signed the letter.
“He was serving as a spokesperson in that role,” she said.
It is important to note that the leaders of the two denominations that pay Makari’s salary – Rev. Geoffrey Black (UCC) and Rev. Dr. Sharon Watkins (Disciples) – both signed the letter. In other words, in his interview with the American Free Press, Makari was speaking on behalf of his two bosses, himself and a dozen other religious leaders in the U.S. including leaders from the National Council of Churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Presbyterian Church (USA), the American Baptist Church and two Catholic organizations (Maryknoll and the Conference of Major Superiors of Men).
The UCC’s response is very alarming because suggests that 15 religious leaders from a variety of institutions in the United States were so intent on getting their message out that they were willing to give an interview to a publication that traffics in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
Fitzgerald: The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Nationalism or Jihad?
[re-posted from July 2, 2006]
For the entire history of the Lesser Jihad against Israel, the promptings of that war from Islam itself have been largely obscured, obscured most of all from the Israelis themselves.
The original opposition of the Arabs to Jews buying land from landowners was naturally muted as long as the Arabs needed Western power to help them against the Turks. But as the earliest leader of the local Arabs -- they were not then, not until after the Six-Day War, renamed the "Palestinians" -- the mufti El Husseini -- made clear, it was Muslims who opposed them, and it should be a common Muslim cause. It took quite a while. Arabs under French rule in North Africa, or miserably poor, and certainly distant from, whatever happened in Mandatory Palestine, would hardly have been in a position to participate in the Lesser Jihad, much less something wider in scope. The Dutch ruled in the East Indies; the British controlled India -- in neither place did the Muslims possess the wherewithal to dream more dangerous dreams. Jihad never went away -- how could it? -- but the wherewithal to conduct Jihad was lacking.
In 1947, the Bishop of Beirut, Moubarac, understood clearly the Muslim basis of the Arab assault on Israel. His speech can be found in Bat Ye'or's Islam and Dhimmitude. The Jews of Israel, however, saw the conflict as one of Arabs who were opposed to the Jews. They knew very little, almost nothing, about Islam. They also knew that many of the local Arab Christians were echoing the sentiments of local Arab Muslims, and assumed, wrongly, that this meant that it was the "Arabs" who were hostile to them. They failed to realize that many of the local Arab Christians were classic dhimmis, who had accepted and internalized Muslim attitudes. That this phenomenon was observable in many communities of non-Muslims under Muslim rule was simply not understood.
The rhetoric of the 1948 attack contained all kinds of allusions to Islam. Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League (and great-uncle to Ayman al-Zawahiri) promised a massacre like that of the Mongols when they conquered the Jews. The still-weak Arabs, however, needed outside help, diplomatic and economic. They were in no position to start muttering darkly about a Jihad against the West.
Pan-Arabism, with which one associates the name of Nasser and then later of Saddam Hussein, who also saw himself as the Arab champion, the Saladin of our age (it didn't matter that Saladin, another native of Tikrit, was a Kurd), was merely a realistic (for its day) subset of pan-Islamism. It was the Arabs who needed to be unified first, and no one could think beyond that goal. Nasser was hardly a Marxist. He was a local despot, with great appeal to Arab youths. This is one of the themes, played on a little too insistently and a little too plangently, by Fouad Ajami in his "predicament" of the Arabs, his "dream palace" of the Arabs shtick that very carefully avoids the subject of Islam.
The "secularists" were never that secular. If Nasser, and then Sadat, treated the Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood, as a menace, it is because they were a menace to them -- a political rival. But this did not make Sadat, in particular, a "secularist" (he actually favored, at times, the Muslim Brotherhood). Saddam Hussein was a Ba'athist because it allowed him to continue to pretend to have a regime open to all, Kurds as well as Arabs, Christians as well as Muslims, Shi'a Muslims as well as Sunni Muslims. And some of them were part of the government. But the real power remained that of Sunnis, and modern Iraq was essentially a Sunni despotism, mild under the monarchy, harsh from Qassem through to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein knew perfectly well that the Shi'a far outnumbered the Sunnis, and that the opposition to him was most dangerous in the Shi'a mosques. It was to his advantage to minimize the political role of Islam, therefore, but whenever it suited him, he invoked Islam and Muslim history. The battles he spoke of when attacking Iran were the old battles against the Persians by the Islam-bearing Arabs. He was building the largest mosque in the world. He commissioned a Qur'an calligraphed using his blood for ink. He put a Qur'anic phrase on the flag of Iraq. Whether or not he was a deep Believer (he is now apparently reading the Qur'an with great intensity), he was certainly a Believer.
Against Israel, the rhetoric, the attitudes, the entire refusal to contemplate the permanence of an Infidel sovereign state, can all without difficulty be ascribed to Islam. The local dhimmis, such islamochristians as Hanan Ashrawi and Naim Ateek and others, promote the Muslim view and Muslim demands. That may confuse a few, but it should not confuse anyone familiar with the phenomenon.
The war against Israel is not an "ethnic" nor a "tribal" war by Arabs against Jews. When rants against Israel are repeated in Pakistan, or by Mahathir Mohamed in Malaysia, or by the assorted Islamic groups in Indonesia, one sees clearly that what is going on is prompted by the belief-system of Islam. It is a war against a non-Muslim state, by as many Muslims as care to participate. Some may have in the past been held in check by their own dislike of the Arabs. The Iranians and the Turks both make insistently clear that "we are not Arabs" and then go on to speak contemptuously of the Arabs. For a while, the national interests of Iran, as defined by the Shah and his advanced if corrupt coterie, included fair treatment of non-Muslims, and a reasonable attitude toward, even a kind of quasi-alliance, with Israel. Something of the sort seems to have developed, later on, between not Turkey but rather between the keepers-of-the-Kemalist-flame in the Turkish army, and some of its secularists, and Israel.
To assume that the war between the Arabs and Israel is ethnic or tribal ignores the rhetoric, the appeals, the views of Muslims as expressed through time and space. It ignores the simplest and most obvious truth: the entire world in the end belongs to Allah and his people, the best of people. And Israel, a sovereign state run by Jews, is a particular affront, not only for where it is situated (seeming to break up the continuity of one uninterrupted Arab Muslim landmass, as Arab Muslims see it -- for them the Maronites, the Copts, the Berbers, the Kurds, have no rights, hardly exist in what Arabs, with a little help from ARAMCO, began decades ago calling "the Arab World" -- a phrase that misleads, but stuck, so that it keeps on misleading), but because the traditionally despised Jews, despised because they had no power (unlike the local Christians, who at least could look to powerful co-religionists in Western Christendom) were in charge of that sliver of land.
The war of the Arabs against Israel is a "religious" war if we consider Islam to be a religion. It is promoted by, it springs from, the tenets, and attitudes, and atmospherics, of Islam. The Muslim Arabs know this. Other Muslims know this. Islamochristian Arabs pretend that it is not so. And the Israelis, of course, prefer not to recognize that it is so, because such recognition would also lead them to conclude, inexorably, that there is no end to this war, and that negotiations are merely occasions for Arab duplicity, as Muhammad ("War is deception") demonstrated in his own treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, which he made with the Meccans in 628 A.D., and broke 18 months later, when his side had increased its power. That, as Majid Khadduri notes, is the basis of Muslim treaty-making with Infidels. It always has been; it will remain such.
And the Muslims are not taught to permit Infidels to remain with some sliver of land where their rule will prevail -- especially not on land once held by Muslims. So the recognition by the Israelis of the true nature of the war against them would also force them to conclude that not only are treaties largely pointless, but that there is no end to this, for the size of Israel is irrelevant to its acceptance by the Arab Muslims. If it further shrinks, however, it may tempt an attack, and the only way the peace can be kept is if the Arabs have an excuse not to attack. That excuse can be found in the idea of "Darura" or "necessity," which can be invoked to justify inaction by Arab regimes.
Muslim Arabs, local ("Palestinians") and non-local, understand perfectly why Israel will never be accepted and must in the end disappear. They differ on the instruments through which this may best be achieved. They differ on the amount of time it will take -- there are the Rapid Jihaidsts of Hamas, and Hezbollah, and the Slow Jihadists of Abbas's PLO. But the understanding of what the end result must be, at some point, is shared by all of them.
It is the Israelis, or many of them in the ruling elites, who refuse to see what is staring them in the face. It's too upsetting. It would require seeing control of the "West Bank" as indispensable -- control of the marches, of the invasion route, of the aquifers necessary for Israel to live. It would require ending the participation in the farce of this "Palestinian" people that the Israelis themselves refer to without any seeming understanding of the way that they thereby promote the "two-tiny-peoples" business, that which since the 1967 War began with the careful creation of the "Palestinian people" and has been so relentlessly used to present as a matter of competing nationalisms what is, in fact, a classic Jihad. Classic in aim, that is, but not classic in its instruments. For as with Western Europe, outright military conquest is unlikely.
In the wake of Israel's efforts to defend herself against constant attacks from Gaza anti Israel and/or anti Jewish demonstrations have been called in many cities outside Israel and the Middle East. One such was called for this evening in West London near the site of the Israeli Embassy in West London. Another demonstration is due in Cardiff on Saturday and a vigil in Wrexham. Wrexham is a market town in North Wales notable for a cornflake factory and a football team which now plays in the Conference League. Quite how the local branch of Barclays Bank will compare with the Israeli Embassy in London I am sure the good people of the town will find out.
The call to demonstrate in the Kensington district of London was a violent one, which is why the publishers of Indymedia hid it quickly.
"Israel has just attacked Gaza so we are calling on everyone to get down to Kensington High street for 5:30pm tonight for a big riot. Bring petrol bombs rocks etc.Turn Kensington into a war zone!"
Plenty of demonstrators have turned up but there was also a good turn out of supporters of Israel. A friend of mine attended and filmed them. He caught a good humoured and stalwart group of people some with Israeli flags, some with Union Jacks.
At the moment only the London Evening Standard has a official report, here. There are unconfirmed reports that there has been friction between the Muslim opponents of Israel and the left-wing opponents of Israel. Hopefully the authorities will deal tomorrow with whoever it was trying to incite violence - it certainly wasn't the Israel supporters.