RubinReports: Belgium: Half of All Muslim Immigrant Children Are Antisemitic

Belgium: Half of All Muslim Immigrant Children Are Antisemitic

This article is published on PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

The Flemish-language newspaper De Morgen (link only in Flemish) has a major article about a survey of Muslim students in Brussels high schools. The professor who conducted the survey concludes that half "can be described as antisemitic which is a very high rate.’’ Five times higher, in fact, then among Flemish-speaking Belgians, who historically have been relatively anti-Jewish.

Incidentally, what was being measured here was not antagonism toward Israel but traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes. No doubt, the former attitude is even stronger.

The anti-Jewish sentiments among Muslims don't vary depending on education level or living standards. Obviously, they aren't getting it from Belgian society.

"The antisemitism is theologically inspired," says the sociologist, Professor Mark Elchardus. "There is a direct link between being Muslim and antisemitic feelings. Catholics, too, are negative toward Jews too, but their sentiments are by far less strong.’’

I think the following points are reasonable to assume:

--These students don't learn anything in school that is going to change their minds. Note that these are overwhelmingly people born in Europe and are native-speakers of the local language.

--Regarding the local media, given the hostility to Israel it is probable that antisemitic stereotypes and feelings will be reinforced rather than diminished.

--It seems reasonable to assume that this statistic basically applies to other European countries.

--Hostility to Jews is likely to climb as this sector of the population grows. It is estimated that about six percent of Belgians today are Muslims, climbing to ten percent in 2030. However, the fact that these people are disproportionately living in big cities increases their influence on the society.

--Even though only a small proportion of Muslim immigrants will engage in anti-Jewish violence, the level will increase sharply. So will discrimination plus other activities against Jews grow as these attitudes influence other parts of society or, which amounts to the same thing, non-Muslim institutions try to appease that sector of the population.

--Pretending that this problem doesn't exist and that only neo-fascist white skinheads exhibit antisemitism is not going to help deal with this issue.

--I'll bet that antisemitism and not Islamophobia is actually Europe's number one "hate" problem but very few politicians or leaders are going to say that.

RubinReports: Belgium: Half of All Muslim Immigrant Children Are Antisemitic

RubinReports: The Direction of Europe: Netherlands: Opposition to Holocaust Education; UK: Voting Trends

The Direction of Europe: Netherlands: Opposition to Holocaust Education; UK: Voting Trends

The Dutch magazine Elsevier has published on its website its findings on the current teaching about the Holocaust in the Netherlands. Of the 339 high school history teachers surveyed, twenty percent say they have encountered hostility, mainly from Muslim students, which made conducting the lesson difficult or even impossible.

In the run-up to the United Kingdom parliamentary elections, Islamic organizations have been trying to organize a bloc vote to support anti-Israel candidates, with a strategy of gaining influence in the small Liberal Democratic party which may hold the balance of power in forming a government.

RubinReports: The Direction of Europe: Netherlands: Opposition to Holocaust Education; UK: Voting Trends

Love of the Land: Outside funding of NGOs threatens sovereignty

Outside funding of NGOs threatens sovereignty

Fresnozionism.org
15 February '10

News item:

NGOs that receive funding from a “foreign political entity” would have to register with the Political Party Registrar and declare in all public appearances that they represent an organization that receives funding from such an entity, according to a bill sponsored by Likud MK Ze’ev Elkin that received government backing from the Ministerial Committee on Legislation on Sunday…

According to the bill, no organization in Israel would be allowed to receive money from a foreign political entity unless it registers with the Registrar of Political Parties. The registrar would be responsible for the registry completely independent of his registry of political parties.

The NGO would have to list the aims of the organization, its address and the identification number of every key activist, including directors, members of the executive committee, active directors and those authorized to sign checks…

This would seem to apply both to foreign governments, fronts for same, and charities like the New Israel Fund (NIF).

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Outside funding of NGOs threatens sovereignty

Love of the Land: Feeding the Crocodiles

Feeding the Crocodiles

Jonathan Spyer
GLORIA Center
12 March 05

(While written almost five years ago, I think this has stood the test of time. Europe is now being served.)

The internal peace of the democracies of western Europe is no longer assured. It is threatened by the growing presence, and growing confidence, of the organizations, activists and spokesmen of radical Islam. This is a phenomenon rarely remarked upon in Israel. It may yet have serious and damaging effects on European views of the Middle East conflict.

Observe: In July 2004, Ken Livingstone, mayor of London and a Labor Party member, hosted Imam Yusuf Qaradawi on a visit to the city. Qaradawi, an Egyptian with a Muslim Brotherhood background, is a resident of Qatar and a founder member of the Al-Jazeera TV channel. He is also the director of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, based in Dublin. Qaradawi is a keen supporter of suicide bombings in Israel, which he describes as 'martyrdom operations.' He has spoken of the inherent 'iniquity of the Jews as a community.' These views (in addition to suspected terrorist connections and his support, variously, for the execution by stoning of homosexuals and adulterous women) led to Qaradawi's being banned from entering the United States.

They did not prevent, however, the princely welcome afforded the controversial cleric by the elected mayor of London, who addressed a packed public meeting together with Qaradawi, praised the 'unacceptable truths' he has raised, and denounced the 'Islamophobic outcry' against him.

The public action of Mayor Livingstone, is, according to Jewish community activists in the UK, only the tip of the iceberg. They point to the presence of Muslim Brotherhood extremists such as Azzam Tamimi among the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition, which was raised to protest the war in Iraq (and organized a demonstration of over a million people in central London in April 2003).

Hebron-born Tamimi, in an interview in November on BBC's 'Hard Talk,' expressed his willingness to undertake a suicide bombing in Israel. The coalition has now morphed into a left-wing political party, improbably uniting Muslim Brothers and British leftists under one political roof.

In the very different context of France, as official recognition of communal differences increases, once again the representation of Muslim communities is falling into the hands of the extremists. Thus, the French Council of the Muslim Faith, created in December 2002 as a representative body of the Muslim community in France, is headed by a moderate, Dalil Boubakeur. The real power in the organization, however, is the Union of Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), a Muslim Brotherhood-associated group.

The role of Tariq Ramadan, with his condemnations of Jewish 'communalism,' close relationships with key mainstream bodies (including the editorial staff of Le Monde Diplomatique) and quoting of Voltaire is of similar importance. Ramadan, surely a world master in the art of ambiguity, deems the killing of Israeli children in suicide bombings to be 'contextually explicable.' (He has similarly refused to condemn the stoning of female adulterers.)

Why does any of this matter? The shared goal of Qaradawi, Tamimi, Ramadan, the UOIF and other Islamist organizations in Europe is to effect a shift in the terms of the European debate. They seek to establish a foothold in the mainstream political discussion in Europe for elements of militant Islamist ideology. These elements include the delegitimization of Jewish communal activity, the normalizing of support for violence against Israelis and Jews, and of calls for the destruction of Israel. This is a long-term project, which through the slow build-up and nurturing of political power and influence is intended to eventually bring forth the fruit of profound shifts in policy.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Feeding the Crocodiles

Love of the Land: Twenty Years Later

Twenty Years Later

Before 2009 comes to an end, I wanted to point out that in this, the 20th anniversary of the reuniting of their divided city of Berlin, the Europeans want to divide our reunited city of Jerusalem

The way to do that, I figured, was to do a cartoon that "just said it"!

* * *

For a report on the current situation by Dr. Dore Gold, Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, click on Europe Seeks to Divide Jerusalem

Love of the Land: Twenty Years Later

Love of the Land: The Ugly European

The Ugly European

FresnoZionism.org
06 December 09

There was a popular book in the 1950’s called “The Ugly American”, which proposed that the US was losing ground in the struggle against Communism because of its arrogance and refusal to try to understand other cultures.

Today a great deal of ugliness comes from Europe. It includes an arrogant belief that they can continue to remake the map of the Mideast however they want, as they’ve done for the past several centuries, as well as a deliberate ignorance about the intentions of the players there.

News item:

Richard Goldstone, the South African jurist and author of a controversial UN report which accused Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during the Israel Defense Forces’ military offensive in the Gaza Strip last winter, will receive the Stockholm Human Rights Award, it was announced on Thursday.

“Richard Goldstone has made an outstanding career in the promotion of the rule of law and human rights, first in his home country South Africa and during the last fifteen years in various highly prestigious international fora,” the International Legal Assistance Consortium, a Sweden-based umbrella group of non-governmental organizations which oversees the awarding of the prize, said on Thursday.

Someone — I’m sorry that I don’t recall who — said that they would have given him a Nobel, but he spoiled it by saying that ‘Palestinian armed groups’ (not even ‘Hamas’) “may be guilty of war crimes” along with Israel. And of course they needed to give it to Obama, for reasons not clear to anyone including the recipient.

Sweden is at the forefront of Israel-hatred in Europe. Its government refused to condemn the Aftonbladet organ-stealing slander, and it is the source of funding for many of the most biased NGOs. So naturally Goldstone is a hero to them.

(Continue article)

Love of the Land: The Ugly European

Love of the Land: Swedish Meatballs

Swedish Meatballs

The story according to Reuters, as quoted by the Daily Times ( a Pakistani Site)

JERUSALEM: "A proposal before the European Union to endorse the division of Jerusalem would risk closing off half the city to non-Muslims, according to a think tank close to the Israeli government. The Israel Project said the plan could be backed at a regular meeting of the bloc’s 27 foreign ministers on Monday, as part of what it called a bid to “forge a high-profile role” in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Diplomats in Brussels said the EU meeting was likely to discuss the stalled Middle East peace process, but no radical new policy change was in the works. East Jerusalem has been seen for years as prospective capital of a future Palestinian state. The think tank singled out current EU president Sweden and its foreign minister Carl Bildt, saying he aimed to sideline the EU’s more balanced existing policy. Relations between Sweden and Israel have been irritated recently by what was seen in Israel as an anti-Semitic story in the Swedish press and Israel’s refusal to let a Swedish minister visit Palestinians in the blockaded Gaza Strip." -more

Love of the Land: Swedish Meatballs

Love of the Land: Why Don't Western Elites and Governments Comprehend International Realities?

Why Don't Western Elites and Governments Comprehend International Realities?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
30 November 09

The question readers most often ask me is an extremely basic, vitally important one.

So how can we explain the world's second biggest problem today. The first is the flourishing of radical, often violent forces, committing aggression, making gains, increasing repression. The second is the refusal of all too much of the Western leadership and intelligentsia to notice that reality, then try to do something about it.

And so why does so much of the political and intellectual establishment in the United States and Europe fail to understand what's going on in the world? How do they not see that radical forces are enemies of their societies, not just misunderstood or mistreated potential friends? What prevents them from championing Western civilization's democratic, humanist, liberty-oriented, and free enterprise with reasonable government regulation system?

In short, why don’t they get it?

There are lots of answers, of course but even after one goes through the list the basic disconnect between reality, perception, and policy remains baffling. To see a society with such advantages and assets act as if it were intent on suicide, or at least with blind disregard for its survival, is a strange phenomenon. To view the stronger obsessed with making concessions, the more moral consumed with guilt, a blind inability to identify enemies who keep proclaiming their nature and intentions is just plain bizarre.

If I had to put it all in one sentence--admittedly a long, complex one--it would be this like this:

American and Western policymakers and intellectuals cannot believe or comprehend that so many would fight for bad causes out of ideological--nationalist, religious, traditionalist--worldviews, turning down material betterment in exchange for years of sacrifice, defeat, and suffering; engaging in a battle that a pragmatic assessment says they cannot win.

(Continue article)

Love of the Land: Why Don't Western Elites and Governments Comprehend International Realities?

Love of the Land: Manipulating the marketplace of ideas

Manipulating the marketplace of ideas

Gerald M. Steinberg
NGO Monitor
Haaretz
27 November 09

For over a decade, European governments have been major sources of funding for dozens of Israeli and Palestinian organizations claiming to promote human rights and similar moral causes. While these groups are known as "nongovernmental organizations," or NGOs, they are, in fact, selected and nurtured by foreign governments. And as seen in research to be discussed in a Knesset conference on December 1, their agendas are more political than moral.

This often hidden support helps pay for expensive newspaper advertisements, such as those recently announcing B'Tselem's 20th anniversary; the salaries of lawyers involved in dozens of High Court cases about the security barrier, treatment of Palestinian terrorists, etc.; the Geneva Initiative's conferences and booklets; and a flood of statements submitted to the United Nations condemning Israeli policies. Recipient NGOs have a major influence on many issues in our lives, and on the decisions of our democratically elected government.

Although foreign funding for Israeli NGOs is labeled as support for "civil society," this is false advertising. Organizations such as Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, B'Tselem, Hamoked Center for the Defense of the Individual, and many more, cannot claim to be rooted in Israeli civil society when they are funded both directly by the Swedish government, and indirectly through budgets provided by the same government to the Diakonia church organization. This process is repeated by another 15 governments (including Norway and Switzerland), as well as the European Commission, which between them fund more than 50 similar organizations.

The nature and scale of European influence is unique - in no other case do democratic countries use taxpayer money to support opposition groups in other democracies. Imagine the French response to U.S. government financing for radical NGO anti-abortion campaigns in Paris, or for promoting Corsican separatists under the guise of human rights. Would Spain tolerate foreign government funding of NGO campaigns involving the violent Basque conflict? But here, as in other areas, Israel is singled out and subject to different rules.

(Continue reading...)

Love of the Land: Manipulating the marketplace of ideas

Love of the Land: Israel is Europe's blind spot

Israel is Europe's blind spot

Many have been seduced by a false Islamic narrative. In fact, the more concessions Israel makes, the more it is attacked

Isi Leibler
guardian.co.uk
26 November 2009

I recently met with a group of Australian journalists, including editors of some of the leading dailies. They impressed me as a fair and open-minded group. In the course of discussions, one elegantly phrased question, not intended to offend, was put to me, which I have been mulling over.

"Did I ever take into account that if virtually the entire world has concluded that Israel is the principal cause for the Middle East impasse, perhaps they are right?"

The question is particularly pertinent in relation to Europe, which has turned so dramatically against Israel. In these "enlightened", postmodernist secular societies, which shun all manifestations of nationalism, Israel is no longer considered a revival of Jewish nationhood, but as a colonial implant that many would be happy to see somehow disappearing as a national entity. And, of course, there is the "new antisemitism" in which demonisation of Israel has become the surrogate for traditional Jew hatred – just as Jews in the middle ages were blamed for all the ills of mankind, so today the Jewish state is increasingly held responsible for the principal woes facing humanity.

In this environment, the left and many liberals now focus their rage against Israel and have succeeded in hijacking human rights groups to serve as vehicles to undermine the Jewish state.

On the international arena, the automatic majority of Islamic and other radical states guarantees the passage of all anti-Israeli resolutions initiated at the UN, no matter how absurd. The so-called UN human rights council (UNHRC), which includes some of the worst tyrannies among its leading members, is just one example.

Simultaneously, the realpolitik imposed by oil-producing countries when securing energy has become the national priority for most nations, together with the growing empowerment of radical Islamic groups throughout Europe, has resulted in many countries siding against Israel, rather than confront the jihadists within their own borders.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Israel is Europe's blind spot

Israel Matzav: Europe chooses a low profile

Europe chooses a low profile

The European Union has chosen its leadership for the first time under its new constitution. Belgium’s prime minister, Herman Van Rompuy, was chosen as the bloc’s president and Catherine Ashton, the European commissioner for trade, who is British, was chosen as foreign policy chief. Max Boot points out that the choice of these two relative unknowns shows that the European Union is nothing more than the sum of its parts.

One suspects that the Europeans chose Van Rompuy and Ashton precisely because they are unlikely to threaten national prerogatives over foreign policy. For all their talk of unity and their actions to achieve some in economic policy, European states remain intensely nationalistic when it comes to the core prerogatives of a nation-state, such as defense and foreign policy. They have little desire to subcontract out those responsibilities to bureaucrats in Brussels. As long as that remains the dominant attitude on the continent — and it shows little sign of changing — the nations of the EU will never achieve the aggregate power that, in theory, the size of their population and economy (both larger than those of the U.S.) would entitle them.

The rest of the world is better off that way. By the middle of this century, much of Europe may well be Muslim. Especially under those circumstances, it's better that Europe should remain a second rate power.

Israel Matzav: Europe chooses a low profile

RubinReports: Iran Rejects Deal on Nuclear Weapons’ Issue: Engagement is Dead but the Obama Administration Won't Admit It

Iran Rejects Deal on Nuclear Weapons’ Issue: Engagement is Dead but the Obama Administration Won't Admit It

[Please subscribe. The news in the Middle East and with U.S. foreign policy changes dramatically every day and you will have advanced, inside information on developments. I note we are scooping the mass media on many stories by days and even weeks.]

By Barry Rubin

The great experiment of engaging Iran seems to be over but the Obama Administration refuses to admit it.

This shouldn't be a surprise. As the Iranian regime's record shows, it stalls, maneuvers, gives vague promises and then doesn’t deliver, but only after they’ve taken your concessions. Do you know how many years the talks with Iran have gone on without yielding fruit and letting Tehran develop nuclear weapons every day? Answer: Seven.

Do you know when the “deadline” originally was for Iran to stop its nuclear program “or else”? Answer: Approximately September 2007.

But the Obama Administration doesn't want to admit that the new Iranian counter-offer is unacceptable because it would have to give up its dreams of a deal and actually do something in response.

Even the New York Times headlines its story: Iran Rejects Nuclear Accord, Officials Report

Here’s the best article on the subject of the current deal/no deal from the sober Financial Times. The headline is “Tehran seeks big changes to nuclear deal.”

It concerns Iran’s response to questions about whether it would transfer two-thirds of its enriched uranium outside the country to make into a special non-weapons material that can only be used for medical purposes. (Note: it can be changed back into weapons-usable uranium in about four months or so.)

After interviewing officials, the newspaper concludes that the Europeans are ready to reject Iran’s demands now as “unacceptable” but the United States isn’t. It writes:

“The comments indicate the US remains more willing to show patience than either Britain and [sic] France. While London and Paris have at times made known their reservations about the agreement, it is seen in the US as a test of President Barack Obama's policy of engagement.”

In other words, the U.S. government is now lagging behind Britain, France, and presumably Germany on this issue. So who is the United States trying to keep on board if the key European allies are all saying: forget this nonsense, we have to put on more pressure!

I suggest there are three answers:

--President Barack Obama’s world view which insists that all problems are resolvable by talking and making concessions, and which fears confrontation.

--The president’s domestic constituency and colleagues (not all of them) who simply don’t comprehend that Iran and radical Islamism are threats.

I am positive, given some of her public statements, that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton knows this is all sheer nonsense. And just as the U.S. government has fallen behind its European counterparts, the White House has fallen behind the State Department.

--Someone else. Here’s the hint:

"We remain unified with our Russian and French partners in support of the IAEA draft agreement - it is a good and balanced agreement," said the US, signaling Washington's hope that Iran could yet agree to the original deal.”

That’s right, Russia. But we know that Russia won’t ever agree to sanctions and serious pressure on Iran. For one thing, everyone in the world but the Obama Administration knows that the Russian leadership wants America to fail internationally. And for another thing, Russia is Iran’s ally.

So America’s policy is being held hostage by a president with no experience or understanding of international affairs, a set of ideas that makes failure inevitable, trying to please a country which is an ally of the adversary, and a dictatorial regime whose president believes that his country is going to conquer the whole Middle East (and on some days, the world).

And here’s a good joke: It was only--what?--four years ago that U.S. officials under the Bush Administration were making fun of Europe as wimpy and incapable of taking a tough stance on international issues. Now the goo is on the other foot!

What a mess. BUT how long into 2010 can they spin this before Washington is going to have to recognize the talks are going nowhere?

RubinReports: Iran Rejects Deal on Nuclear Weapons’ Issue: Engagement is Dead but the Obama Administration Won't Admit It

Love of the Land: Prosecution of IDF officers cynically twists truth

Prosecution of IDF officers cynically twists truth

FresnoZionism.org
27 October 09

Ha’aretz reports:

Human rights lawyers and pro-Palestinian activists in a number of European countries hold lists with names of Israel Defense Forces soldiers allegedly linked to war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. Existing legislation enables arrest warrants to be issued against these officers if they enter those countries.

Lawyers in Britain and other European countries have been collecting testimonies of Palestinians and other data from Gaza since January, which they maintain proves that war crimes were committed by the IDF during the offensive. The evidence is linked to IDF officers holding ranks of battalion commander and higher, who were in command during various stages of Cast Lead.

The other nations who have lawyers collecting information on the matter include the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Norway, whose laws, as well as Britain’s, allow the issuance of arrest warrants against foreign citizens suspected of war crimes.

All very official, not unlike ‘official’ Nazi legal procedures for confiscating Jewish property, etc. Naturally only the highest standards of ‘evidence’ will be used:

[British attorney Daniel] Makover said that the Goldstone report on the fighting in the Gaza Strip will bolster the efforts of the activists, and said that some of the instances mentioned in the report were already known to the attorneys. Makover is part of an unofficial network of attorneys operating in various countries in Europe, exchanging and sharing information so that suspected officers may be arrested in those countries.

Imagine my relief to know that the same careful forensic methods and the same standards of fairness that characterize the Goldstone reportand NGO ‘investigations’ will now drive an international manhunt to capture the criminals who have violated Rule No. 1:

• Jewish self-defense is strictly forbidden (but Palestinians have the right to ‘resist’).
• 
  

Other public-spirited individuals will help assure that the ‘perpetrators’ do not escape ‘justice’:

The information is often received from pro-Palestinian activists who follow Jewish or pro-Israel groups that invite IDF officers to deliver lectures. In some instances, this information is relayed to border controls…

A number of human rights groups are busy working to create an international organization that would enable closer surveillance of those they suspect of war crimes and torture, as well as seek warrants for their arrest.

It also renews my faith in my fellow man to know that they are not depending on the authorities to bring these miscreants to justice. No, a network of ‘pro-Palestinian activists’ and ‘human rights groups’ will make sure the none of them slip away!

It would be unbelievable, if it were not true, that language, organizations and laws that originally came into being as a result of the horrific persecutions of Jews by the Nazis are being used today to aid the Palestinian Arabs — who were allied with the Nazis during the war — as they take part in the 100-year old war against Jews living ineretz yisrael.

The cynical twisting of truth that facilitates this is really a triumph of modern media manipulation in the supposedly ‘advanced’ countries of Europe. Göbbels himself would have to admire it.

There are other ironies. In the Warsaw Ghetto 66 years ago, Jews who tried to defend themselves were hunted down. Then, as now, the ‘authorities’ had the enthusiastic help of ‘activists’, Ukrainians, Latvians and some Poles (although in fairness, the Polish underground aided the Jews).

Imagine the empowerment of today’s ‘activists’, who in addition to demanding boycotts of Israeli products and professors can now actually help lock up a real live IDF officer!

Sometimes human behavior is so perverse, so ignorant, stupid and evil that the usual rhetorical tools, like irony, can’t begin to describe it. For years after, historians, novelists and poets struggle to explain the apparent pandemic insanity of a time or collection of events, like the Crusades or the Nazi era.

Today, when half the world is obsessed with the desire to stamp out a tiny nation with a tiny population, a nation with no significant natural resources except Jewish brains, is truly one of those times.

Love of the Land: Prosecution of IDF officers cynically twists truth

RubinReports: The West’s Choice of Strategy: Defending Itself From Terror Attacks or Combatting A Radical Strategic Threat?

The West’s Choice of Strategy: Defending Itself From Terror Attacks or Combatting A Radical Strategic Threat?

By Barry Rubin

There are two basic strategies being put forth in the West and particularly the United States today in regard to the challenge from radical and Islamist forces. The narrower, terror-only strategy is a far more tempting one to follow. It is less expensive, less risky, and makes it far easier to claim success. That’s why it has such enormous appeal and is generally the one being adopted.

--The Terror-Only Strategy

In this approach, the problem is defined as direct terror attacks on Western territory and facilities elsewhere like embassies. The enemy is those groups which directly target the West, meaning al-Qaida and its allies plus various independent local self-made terrorists (who are influenced, of course, by Jihadist propaganda).

Since these groups have no major state sponsor, this is a narrow counterterrorism strategy which does not require confrontation or conflict with any other country. It can be handled largely as a police and criminal matter. Success is measured by an ability to keep such attacks to an absolute minimum.

Moreover, it permits the luxury of ignoring attacks on or in other countries—including Israel especially—as not being a matter of much concern. Thus, a whole category of groups and their state sponsors can be ignored. If you don’t bother them, it is hoped, they won’t bother you. (This is not without exception, though, as Western states have been willing to put sanctions on Hamas, though these are under some challenge.)

This strategy also has an internal aspect. Since only those small groups which want to attack on their territory are the problem, it can be argued that the best defense is to work with Islamist groups which, no matter how extreme their ideology and their support for terrorism abroad, don’t engage in violence on your own territory.

While there is a sharp debate over the domestic aspect of the strategy--some countries like Britain and France are ready to work with "moderate" Islamists, others aren't—it has clearly won out on the international front and has been adopted by the Obama Administration.

--The Anti-Islamist Strategy

This seems closer to the Bush Administration’s view and is thus considered discredited in most Western policymaking circles. The concept here is that radical Islamist forces threaten Western strategic interests and pose the principal threat of this era.

The other side here consists, of several different forces: an Iran-led alliance (Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Iraqi insurgents); Jihadist terrorist groups (al-Qaida and its various affiliates and the Taliban); the Muslim Brotherhoods; and some countries with radical regimes (Sudan, Libya). The key problem is not whether these forces are engaged in direct violence against Western targets, they are at war with Western interests which they seek to destroy.

In this context, they may well engage in anti-Western violence in future. But more important, they are capable of seizing control of countries or regions thus wielding enormous assets. If they succeed—or are perceived by millions of Muslims as succeeding—the entire strategic balance in the Middle East would shift. Western interests would suffer a huge setback and the imbalance could escalate over time.

Obviously, this latter strategy is far less attractive to policymakers. Why get into a possible confrontation with powerful forces and large countries if that can be avoided? Why set the standard of success so high that you probably cannot reach it?

Of course, the problem is that the larger threat is by far the more serious threat. A shift in the balance of forces in such a strategic region, leading inevitably to the encouragement of subversive and violent forces in one’s own countries, is a far more dangerous situation than the occasional bombing or shooting.

But if you believe that it is adequate to deal only with direct violence against you, it can be argued that the best solution is to engage the radical forces at home and abroad, appease them, and avoid trouble. As President Barack Obama put it, he doesn’t seek victory over Iran but a solution to the problem, which is defined as Iran developing nuclear weapons without some agreement or at all.

Iranian involvement in subverting Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other countries, or fighting Israel, for example, becomes part of the background which you take for granted. But then so is Tehran’s sponsorship of terrorism against U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, too.
At home, the problem is three-fold. First, if you strengthen Islamist forces, since their goal is to transform the state and society there is a likelihood that they will be a far bigger problem in future, including involvement in violence.

Second, there are always violent spin-offs from these groups, based on the people they indoctrinate even if the main group refrains from violence. Where do Jihadi terrorists come from except through the ranks of such organizations?

Third, by empowering an Islamist leadership, such individuals and groups are more likely to emerge at the head of all, or most, of the Muslim community. This will defeat assimilationist and moderate tendencies and thus greatly magnify the power of the Islamists. In effect, the government tells Muslims: these groups are your leaders so follow them and their ideology. By doing this, massive damage is being inflicted on the host society.

Understandably, this limited terrorism-only strategy is tempting as a policy since it is so hard to do anything to solve the bigger Islamist threat. But doesn’t this choice also put the West in great long-term jeopardy, discourage more moderate Third World clients, and guarantee a far higher level of anti-Western violence in future?

That’s something most Western policymakers prefer not to think about, far less do anything about.

RubinReports: The West’s Choice of Strategy: Defending Itself From Terror Attacks or Combatting A Radical Strategic Threat?

Love of the Land: A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem With Israel

A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem With Israel

A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel, by Robin Shepherd, has now been published in the UK by Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Readers can purchase the book at the link to Amazon at the bottom of this article.

Every author wants his work to be read as widely as possible. So, I make no apology for a rather blatant piece of self-promotion here on my blog!

No country in the world has attracted as much censure and vilification in Europe in recent years as Israel. It seems to me that a more reasonable state of affairs will continue to elude us until we truly understand why this has happened.

It is up to others to assess how successful I have been in that aim. I called the book A State Beyond the Pale as a rather obvious play on words. Israel has been pushed beyond the pale of polite society across Europe. But could it be that it is Europe that is putting itself beyond the pale by immersing itself in bigotry?

Europe’s indignant opinion forming classes believe they are in a position to do the judging on this issue. They are convinced that it is they who hold the moral high ground. I beg to differ, and I seek to show how an obsessive and virulent anti-Zionism reflects deep seated weaknesses in the political culture of Europe. Europe is no position to do the judging. It does not hold the moral high ground. The great paradox is that the conflict is judging Europe. The anti-Israeli agenda tells us more about the people who are pushing it than they might care to admit.

Finally, the book does not focus on the usual suspects at the fringes. Focusing on far-Left or far-Right groups, let alone Islamist extremists, would have been to go for the easy targets. The value of such an approach would have been reduced accordingly.

A State Beyond the Pale focuses instead on anti-Israeli sentiment inside the mainstream of the public discourse. That is the core of the problem and it is there that the problem must now be addressed. So, I look forward to all your comments which are probably best directed to my email account on this site.

To purchase the book on Amazon for yourself or friends, click on the following link:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Beyond-Pale-Europes-Problem/dp/0297856642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252324611&sr=1-1<

Love of the Land: A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem With Israel

RubinReports: Crisis in Israel-Europe Relations?

Crisis in Israel-Europe Relations?

By Barry Rubin

The AP reporter’s voice shows she’s very young and her choice of words show she’s very inexperienced. “What do you think,” she asks me, “about the crisis between Europe and Israel.”

Crisis? Well most immediately this is the kind of “crisis” you want, over a very narrow issue—construction on settlements—which can be easily resolved. The Europeans are supporting U.S. efforts, U.S. policy has become a lot more positive on this issue in recent weeks, and some resolution will soon be found.

The resolution will soon be found because President Barack Obama needs one. In the pattern so often repeated by this administration he has put himself in a corner. If he is going to look “good” at the UN session, feel he has a basis for raising sanctions on Iran, and broker an Israel-Palestinian Authority meeting he has to solve this issue of construction. Right now, he needs a resolution far more than does Israel.

This administration has a genius for putting itself into the weaker position on any international issue.

It’s funny, though, how European governments always find some reason to be annoyed and threatening pressure on Israel but never ever on the Palestinians. Have you noticed that? Massive corruption, incitement to violence, letting terrorists go or never arresting them in the first place, violating commitments, none of its seems to matter.

So European governments have an interesting choice: Is their main goal to be “pro-Palestinian” (if condemning a people to decades of conflict by supporting their intransigence can be called supporting them) or seeking Israel-Palestinian peace?

Read All at :

RubinReports: Crisis in Israel-Europe Relations?

Love of the Land: Crisis in Israel-Europe Relations?

Crisis in Israel-Europe Relations?

Barry Rubin

The Rubin Report

06 September 09

The AP reporter’s voice shows she’s very young and her choice of words show she’s very inexperienced. “What do you think,” she asks me, “about the crisis between Europe and Israel.”

Crisis? Well most immediately this is the kind of “crisis” you want, over a very narrow issue—construction on settlements—which can be easily resolved. The Europeans are supporting U.S. efforts, U.S. policy has become a lot more positive on this issue in recent weeks, and some resolution will soon be found.

The resolution will soon be found because President Barack Obama needs one. In the pattern so often repeated by this administration he has put himself in a corner. If he is going to look “good” at the UN session, feel he has a basis for raising sanctions on Iran, and broker an Israel-Palestinian Authority meeting he has to solve this issue of construction. Right now, he needs a resolution far more than does Israel.

This administration has a genius for putting itself into the weaker position on any international issue.

It’s funny, though, how European governments always find some reason to be annoyed and threatening pressure on Israel but never ever on the Palestinians. Have you noticed that? Massive corruption, incitement to violence, letting terrorists go or never arresting them in the first place, violating commitments, none of its seems to matter.

So European governments have an interesting choice: Is their main goal to be “pro-Palestinian” (if condemning a people to decades of conflict by supporting their intransigence can be called supporting them) or seeking Israel-Palestinian peace?

The answer in most cases—all countries are different—is the former. Being “pro-Palestinian” makes them look “progressive” and “humanitarian,” supposedly scores points in the Arab and Muslim world, theoretically promotes trade and investment with the aforementioned places, and so on.

Also, if European leaders believe—some do, some don’t—that there isn’t going to be peace (even if they privately blame the Palestinians) this policy can seem to make sense for their interests.
Israel’s problem is not predominantly with the European masses or even, to a lesser extent, with governments, but with the European intellectual elites. After all, take the four main countries of Europe: France, Germany, Italy, and the UK.

Read All at :

Love of the Land: Crisis in Israel-Europe Relations?

RubinReports: Let’s Pretend We’re Making Arab-Israeli, Israel-Palestinian Peace

Let’s Pretend We’re Making Arab-Israeli, Israel-Palestinian Peace

By Barry Rubin

Here’s one of my favorite stories explaining how the Middle East works. It was told by Muhammad Hussanein Heikal, the famed Egyptian journalist. Like all Heikal’s stories, it may or may not be true, which is also part of the lesson being taught.

When Muammar Qadhafi first became Libya’s dictator, Heikal was dispatched to meet and evaluate him by Egypt’s ruler, Gamal Abdel Nasser. After returning to Cairo, Heikal was quickly ushered into the president’s office.

“Well,” said Egypt’s president, “what do you think of Qadhafi?”

“He’s a disaster! A catastrophe!”

“Why,” asked the president, “is he against us?”

“Oh no, far worse than that,” Heikal claims to have replied. “He’s for us and he really believes all the stuff we are saying!”

The point was that the Egyptian regime took the propaganda line out of self-interest that all Arabs should be united into one state under its leadership, all the Arab monarchies overthrown, Israel wiped off the map immediately, and Western influence expelled, but it knew itself incapable of achieving these goals and to try to do so would bring disaster. Indeed, when Nasser had tried to implement part of this program in 1967, he provoked Israel into attacking and suffered his worst disaster.

Come to think of it, Arab regimes are still playing this game of systematically purveying radicalism, hatred, and unachievable goals to distract their populace, excuse their own failings, focus antagonism against foreign scapegoats and seek regional ambitions.

Western governments do this kind of thing a bit differently.

In this regard, recent statements by a number of leaders including President Barack Obama, prime ministers Gordon Brown and Benjamin Netanyahu, and others, establish an important principle:

Actually achieving Middle East peace is of no importance. The only thing that is important is saying that progress is being made and that peace will come soon.

Read all the article at :

RubinReports: Let’s Pretend We’re Making Arab-Israeli, Israel-Palestinian Peace

ISRAEL HERE AT HOME

Sometimes I think that people has gone mad. An awful disease has taken possession of the minds of europeans. They can, no more, differentiate right from wrong or fantasy from reality.

Once more, a stratagem clouds their vision so what they can see is only what a deceitful foe wants.

Governements and public opinion are being misleaded, lured into a trap they should know very well. Antisemitism. Yes, Europe, nowadays, is ready to make the same mistakes that in the past brought war and death to the continent.

Recent events show that authorities are more preoccupied in not to offend the sensibility of the muslim minorities even at the cost of the civil liberties of the europeans.

Fortunately there are still people who can think by themselves. People who can see the danger approaching and still have the courage to denounce it .

This article was published in the portuguese weekly publication "Expresso" (17/01/09) and was writen by Henrique Raposo. Here's the translation :

ISRAEL HERE AT HOME

Western Europe has two intelectual sports that turn around the figure of the "jew". In the historical jogging, typical european only talks of the Holocaust's victims. "History" and "Holocaust" are synonymous in old Europe's dictionary. In the international politic's jogging, europeans spend their lives criticizing Israel's actions. Besides, a good part of the europeans thinks that criticizing Telaviv is the same as having a sustained thought about international politics. But amounting these most sonorous official joggings, we are going to find a third european sport related to the "jew". But this third sport is a concealed and silent one. I am, as obvious, talking about of the "politically correct" jogging; that who bleaches the antisemitism of the muslims living in Europe. However, this matter never deserves to be made noteworthy in the european agenda.

Since September 11th. Jewish communities in France, United Kingdom, Netherlands and Germany had been violently attacked by radical muslims. Answering this, european authorities advised jews to hide the signs of their jewishness. In face of such an immense kindness, many european jews are immigrating to Israel. And what does journalists and politicians say about this problem ? Nothing. The antisemitism of european muslims is a tabu. A tabu that results from the epistemological fascism imposed by the politically correct. In this strange intelectual ambient, to criticize radical islam is the same as being "racist", and pointing the finger at islamic antisemitism can only be the sign of a deep "islamicophobia". Here is, therefore, the remarkable contradiction imposed by the semantic fascism that everyone knows by the nickname of "politically correct": we can talk about the antisemitism of the europeans who died in 1945, but we are prohibited to comment the antisemitism of the muslims who live here and now. In 2009 the "good european" must hyperbolize the white man's antisemitism (located in our memory) and, at the same time, must bleach islamic antisemitism (located in our everyday life)

WHAT YOU CAN DO

What You Can Do

The destruction of 27 democratic constitutions, 27 national parliaments, 14 national currencies and 14 central banks by the "European" Union has been brought about by the same forces which were twice defeated in the first 50 years of the 20th century.

These various powers have now largely achieved what they fought two world wars to attain - an integrated anti-democratic, corporatist European Superstate under German domination.

Here is what you can do to make a difference: Most of these steps can be either y reproduced in or adapted to local national circumstances:

1. See the list of companies and individuals most identified with the destruction of the free nations of Europe (British Eurofederalists on this site). Boycott the companies and vote against the individuals and tell them why and what they need to do to regain your custom or vote (i.e. reject the Euro and the European Union, withdraw from any Eurofederalist business organisations and support a common market of sovereign democratic nations).

2. Similarly note the Eurofederalist MPs listed in that section and seek to have them de-selected and defeated - regardless of their party or political beliefs. Do not forget that there is no point in voting for an MP who shares some of your political beliefs if the Parliament to which he wishes you to elect him has no constitutional power to do anything.

3. In Britain - join the British Declaration of Independence (formerly the South Molton Declaration) and force your MP to sign before the next election. You can influence him/her by pledging your vote on the website www.bdicampaign.org Outside Britain ensure that the same kind of campaign is run in your country. The BDI is a mode which can be adapted to other countries - so long as the people have a vote! The BDI provides a solution to the grave crisis in Europe - by forcing your elected representatives to recognise the sovereignty of the people. The BDI allows the voter to take back control of the political process. If a political party provides an equal or better constitutional policy the BDI website will certainly inform you and recommend that policy.

4. Buy and distribute the leaflets. Hundreds of thousands of these have been bought and distributed and are influencing those who do not normally take an interest in politics and do not have time to read books. Use the facts and arguments in these leaflets in your letters to the press and MPs. Those outside Britain should translate the leaflets and use them in their campaigns.

5. Engage in day-to-day political affairs - writing to the press, writing to complain to your MP, going to public meetings. Politics is a grubby game which decent people find rather pathetic and so avoid. However, when your nation, your parliament and your democracy are in danger of extinction YOU MUST ACT.

5. Fight all Proportional Representation systems of voting. In Germany the Social Democratic Party - the Party of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder - was found to be selling places on proportional representation candidate lists. In Cologne they had rewarded party supporters with well-paid jobs if they (among other favours) stepped down from their (usually high) place on the PARTY LIST.

All PR systems have lists of candidates for whom the electorate cannot vote but who nevertheless, if they are high up the list, will be elected to parliament under that system. PR systems give enormous power and patronage to the Party machine over its members and voters and therefore to the executive in Government over the Party. This naturally enhances the authoritarian nature of politics in those countries - and makes the destruction of their national constitutions rather easy, as we have seen in the European Union.

In Germany for instance the Free Democratic Party was in Government for decades without a break even though they averaged only 7-8% of the vote.

PR also means that even after the election no one knows who the Government will be - until the party hierarchies have, in smoke-filled rooms, bargained with usually small parties with less than 10% of the vote. It is at this stage that non-democratic power - like favours to trade unions and big business and the European Commission - can and do enter the equation.

All PR systems take power away from the true sovereigns - the people - and make the MP accountable not to the voters but to the party hierarchy and ultimately to the Government machine and anti-democratic corporatist interests.

taken from Free Nations : http://www.freenations.freeuk.com