SINISTER PARALLELS OF HATRED
by George Galloway
Morning Star, Sunday 14 January
There are weeks to go before a general election and the main parties are struggling. Cue the filthy politics of scapegoating and divide and rule.
If it were only the fascists of the British National Party and their street-fighting associates in the English Defence League it would be bad enough.
But so widespread and respectable has demonising Britain’s Muslim and immigrant communities become that unscrupulous mainstream politicians are tempted to slide from the gutter into that sewer.
The ground is sadly fecund for them, fertilised by mountains of manure from not only the right but from people who consider themselves liberals. This is one of the especially pernicious features of Islamophobia - racism against Muslims.
Even the medieval scholastics would have been hard pressed to come up with the kind of specious distinctions which so many journalists and academics resort to in an effort to claim that sweeping generalisations about
Muslims or identifying their core practices with fundamentalism do not amount to a form of racism.
The same sleight of hand was in play a century ago, when old religious prejudices against Jews became fused with anti-immigration rhetoric and transformed into a prejudice directed at an ethnic, cultural group, which increasingly became defined as that scientifically inaccurate category - race.
It is no exaggeration to say that you can pore over parliamentary debates, politicians’ speeches and media exposes a century ago in London’s East End and, by substituting Muslim for Jew, find exact parallels with today’s prejudiced ravings.
In 1902, Tory MP for Stepney Major William Evans Gordon complained that English families were being “ruthlessly turned out to make room for foreign invaders” and that in some schools “few English children are to be found.”
He complained of widespread Yiddish advertising and the opening of synagogues.
Lurid stories circulated about Jewish religious customs and beliefs. Had the technology existed, there would certainly have been an undercover hatchet job on some Jewish organisation or other. Maybe other, more liberal, politicians might have engaged in theatrical walkouts from a traditional wedding and denouncing gender separate seating arrangements in the yellow press.
Still others might have claimed that it was not Jews per se they were against, but the participation of Jewish community organisations, such as the Bund, in British political parties. Anyone who’s followed the recent smears against the Muslim community in east London will get the picture.
There are affinities between anti-semitism and Islamophobia. Both are driven not only by scapegoating of newcomers domestically, particularly in times of economic hardship.
They also have an international dimension and are the product of a world view. Nearly a century ago Jews were held to be responsible for a Judaeo-Bolshevik conspiracy which, preposterously, was supposedly pulling the strings of the socialist movement and the international banking system.
Today, Muslims practising their culture and religion are held to be part of a global continuum stretching over to Osama bin Laden, a breeding ground for a fundamentalism which threatens our very way of life.
Every war requires a justification. Wars of aggression cannot be made popular by presenting their true motivation. So ideology is needed, lies. And that ideology is inherently racist, because you have to find a way of getting people not to empathise with a score of civilians blown up on an Afghan road in the same way they would if there was a tragic pile up on the M1.
Islamophobia is the ideological handmaiden of the so-called war on terror. Here, it shows family traits with other ideological props of war.
One of the most disgraceful allegations against Muslims in east London is that they, in the form of one of the largest community organisations here, have been “infiltrating” British political parties.
On the one hand Muslims are told they must engage in British democracy. On the other, when they do they are denounced as infiltrators. The Tory Sunday Telegraph seemed perplexed that there was both a big increase in votes in the East End for Ken Livingstone when he ran for mayor two years ago and large numbers of people registering to vote this year.
It immediately summoned up the spectre of hardcore fundamentalist manipulation. The more plausible explanations are that Ken - supported by Respect, which commands a big vote in east London - won support because of his policies and opposition to Boris Johnson’s dog-whistle politics and that, in an election year with every council seat up for grabs and a referendum on an elected mayor to boot, it was quite natural that registration would rise in a highly politicised place like Tower Hamlets.
But the “infiltration” claims resembled nothing more than the anti-communist propaganda of the 1950s and ’60s - the ideology of the cold war. Coincidentally - or maybe not - the Israeli intelligence services have warned of action to undermine the alliance between the left and Muslim communities in Britain, in London in particular, embodied in the movements against war and for Palestine.
The demonisation of Muslims disfigures our society and is set to feature strongly over the next few weeks. That’s certainly so in Tower Hamlets, where the Labour Party’s head honcho has smeared the town hall - and by extension all who work there - as “a centre of Islamic fundamentalism.” One of his Facebook friends charmingly suggested he should go there armed with “pork scratchings.”
The Stop the War Coalition and others are working on a major conference after the election to confront Islamophobia. It aims to draw in the broadest range of participants, trying to win a principled position among those way beyond its ranks.
But the coalition is not waiting until then and nor should anyone who cares about the rising tide of prejudice. The BNP and EDL should be confronted and exposed. And every candidate in this election should be challenged over this question.
The Tories should be asked if they are happy to associate with Michael Gove, who’s campaigning Swiss-style against the construction of a mosque in his constituency.
Labour should be asked why their campaign in Tower Hamlets is bent on dividing Muslims from non-Muslims and sowing divisions in the Muslim community itself.
A recent British Social Attitudes survey found that the public is far more likely to hold negative views of Muslims than of any other religious group in Britain. That was so of Jews in the 1930s. We have been warned.
Tories point finger in the wrong direction
You’ve got to hand it to the Tories. No-one does missing the point better.
When asked about Lord Ashcroft bankrolling the Tories with some of the millions he’s avoided in tax, William Hague retorted in Parliament recently that the “real funding scandal” was the Unite union, which includes my own T&G, donating to Labour.
But the point, surely, is that all those union members have paid their taxes and have decided through a democratic ballot to have a political fund.
Labour’s attack would be sharper, of course, were it not for the fact that it has had its own fair share of assignations with assorted oligarchs.
My own party, Respect, is busy raising funds the old-fashioned way and is getting a good response in our target areas, especially the three seats where we are best placed to win.
Our chances in east London have just been boosted by two sitting Labour councillors coming over to Respect.
If we do get three MPs on May 6 we may well sit in a hung Parliament the way things are going.
One thing’s for sure - Respect will never support a Tory government. So, where we can win, we are the surest anti-Tory vote.
And our conditions for supporting a minority Labour government are that it breaks from the new Labour apostasy, launches a massive public housing programme, sets an early date for withdrawal from wars of aggression abroad and brings real democratic change at home.
So, voters in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham Hall Green could well find that they hold more than the fate of three parliamentary seats in their hands. Stranger things have happened. It’s going to be a very interesting campaign.
So do readers of Socialist Unity - and/or supporters of George Galloway - believe that the Bund and Islamic Forum Europe are essentially comparable organisations?
Comment by Sad Sectarian Dave O — 14 March, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
I had often wondered how Respect had managed to get such a large Muslim block vote. Then I found this.
http://www.sunnahonline.com/library/contemporary/0037.htm
“WHICH PARTY DESERVE OUR VOTES?
The answer to such a question requires a deep and meticulous understanding of the political arena.
Consequently, I believe that individuals should avoid involving themselves in this process and rather should entrust this responsibility to the prominent Muslim organisations that have sufficient experience and ability to determine the issue according to the interests of the Muslims.
In closing, I have come to the conclusion that the major Muslim organisation concerned about politics in UK so far is the Muslim Association of Britain. They have done a great service by preparing a list of candidates whom they believe will best represent the interests of Muslims in the event they are elected.
For example, they recommend that Muslims in London should vote for the Respect party, led by George Galloway. ”
I suppose there is nothing sinister about a religious leader telling the faithful how to vote, especially when he recommends you, eh George.
Comment by Boab — 14 March, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
I had often wondered how Respect had managed to get such a large Muslim block vote
This is just racist bullshit. Muslims don’t vote in a ‘block’ any more than white people do. Racist ideology always construes the oppressed as an undifferentiated mass who threaten democracy by voting in blocks and along racial or ‘tribal’ lines. This is, eg, how just about every ethnic minority in the US has been demonised. The purpose of such defamation is to justify racist appeals to white voters, to insist that they should vote as a block for right-wing parties that promise to defend them from the non-white racial conspiracy.
Comment by lenin — 14 March, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
I don’t always agree with George but this is an excellent article, racism is functional for desperate politicians playing the blame game.
Comment by Derek Wall — 14 March, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
lenin
The quote above is from a publication entitled “Why vote and who to vote for” by Shaykh Haitham Al-Haddad. He clearly says, ” I believe that individuals should avoid involving themselves in this process and rather should entrust this responsibility to the prominent Muslim organisations”
It is a Muslim scholar who is trying to create a Muslim block vote. I simply looked at what he said to do, and noticed it was what happened.
Who exactly is defaming who? I simply quoted a scholar who instructed Muslims not to think, but instead ask the Muslim Association of Britain who to vote for. This may seem like democracy to someone called Lenin, but not to me.
Comment by Boab — 14 March, 2010 @ 10:27 pm
Fuck off Boab, you moron.
For decades, indeed centuries, the church, Protestant, Catholic, has made interventions in the political process and often, probably more informally than on the record, let it be known who they think their parishioners should support politically.
But when it’s brown people you see an opportunity to cook up some racist poison.
I guess that when it’s Scottish Labour getting it’s decaying phalanxes of voters lined up by the local bishop it doesn’t bother you huh ?
Comment by Eddie Truman — 14 March, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
Boab: and you think the politically sophisticated electorate in East London will just go along with what someone tells them? Such idocy.
Comment by nas — 14 March, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
George is right the ‘EDL should be confronted’ and Stop the War are supporting the UAF protest against them this Saturday in Bolton
http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1783/1/
Support for this protest includes Ruth Kelly MP, John Leech MP, Sir Gerald Kaufman MP, Tony Lloyd MP, Margaret Hodge MP, Dawn Butler MP, Beverley Hughes MP, David Chaytor MP, Graham Stringer MP, Ken Livingstone, Christine Blower (NUT), Billy Hayes (CWU), Hugh Lanning (PCS)
They have signed the Bolton Unity Statement which says
“Let’s gather in such large numbers that we make it clear to these fascist and racist thugs that they are not welcome here. Let’s protest against the racists and fascists, oppose their politics of hatred and defend Bolton’s diverse and united community.”
We should welcome this call from ‘mainstream politicians’ for opposition to the EDL & the BNP - without dropping criticism of other policies which have encouraged the growth of these racist, Nazis groups.
George is right “the BNP and EDL should be confronted” - Bolton is a key test for the anti racist movement
Comment by Mark Krantz — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:03 pm
Eddie
No Eddie, it would bother me a great deal if any religious figure told his/her faithful that voting is too complex for them to think about and that they should do what a small group of individuals tells them to do.
As far I am aware, the only Scottish Bishop to do something similar was Joe Devine, and it was against Labour, not for it. And I condem him in equal measure. But at least he said “This is hat I am doing, vote with your conscience”, not “Catholics are too ignorant to make up their own mind”
Nas
and you think the politically sophisticated electorate in East London will just go along with what someone tells them?
No but Shaykh Haitham Al-Haddad and the MAB clearly do. Otherwise he would not have told them to do so.
Comment by Boab — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
Boab may have ‘often wondered how Respect had managed to get such a large Muslim block vote’
But most Muslims have always voted Labour. And polls indicate most Muslims will vote Labour at the next election
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100225/FOREIGN/702249915/1013
The decline in Muslims voting Labour at the recent elections was matched by ‘old Labour’ non Muslims also not voting Labour.
Muslim voters can decide which way to vote the same as any one else - to suggest other wise is based upon racist assumptions.
We all would like more opportunities to vote for candidates to the Left of Labour
Comment by Mark Krantz — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
Boab: he may well think that. But what makes you think he’s right?
Comment by nas — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
The humanists are intervening in the election, I am not a humanist but their demands are fair enough, different religious groups and non-religious groups take part in political activity.
So what? I am guessing I might agree with some MAB ideas and disagree others but this is politics. Picking out the MAB as a special case is racism and Islamaphobia.
Comment by Derek Wall — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
Boab youre actually right on this. Is someone saying Kafflicks are thick sheep?
Comment by eamonn wright — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:14 pm
#10, Boab, that’s bullshit and you know it damn well.
The church, Protestant and Catholic, has been a crucial factor in Scottish politics for centuries.
But when it comes to Muslims, up you pop to recycle the second hand poison from the latest Islamophobic garbage.
#8, I understand Galloway as you do, in this instance he is bang on the money.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:15 pm
re Bund - I doubt if anti-semites of the time were knowledgable enough to know of, or talk of the Bund. The scare stories were about ‘Jewish anarchists’ and then of course, ‘Jewish Bolsheviks’ (eg my grandmother!). There were two broad stereotypes about Jews - the Jewish bankers (who were holding Britain to ransome) and filthy, East European Jews - and it’s these that GG is describing as occupying a similar symbolic niche as today’s Muslims. It would also apply, to ‘the Chinese’ who came into the East End at that time and were accused of being sly, untrustworthy traders, and…er…Chinese.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
“you pop to recycle the second hand poison from the latest Islamophobic garbage.”
This is not second hand, it is first hand. It is not Islamophobic garbage, but straight from the keyboard of a scholar. Can you give me one example from any of the three main Scottish congregations when a Priest or Minister has told his congregation that they shouldn’t think, they should follow his instructions as to who to vote for.
Eammon
Is someone saying Kafflicks are thick sheep?
No. I said at least Big Joe Devine didn’t say that. However, Shaykh Haitham Al-Haddad seems to think little of Muslims.
Comment by Boab — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:30 pm
Once the racist attacks on Respect have been dealt with - a more important question on the roots of anti Muslim racism arises from George’s analysis which needs debating.
George is absolutely right making the parallels with racism against the Jews.
And I agree that today ‘Islamophobia is the ideological handmaiden of the so-called war on terror.’
However the Islamophobia of the EDL and the BNP today is also built upon the strong anti Muslim racism that was at the heart of the racism of the Nazi BNP in the 1980’s, and the NF in the 1970’s.
They used to call it ‘Paki bashing’ (I felt sick typing that word)
There was opposition to this vile racism then - both by the anti Nazi and anti racism movements, and by movements of Asian youth (a history that needs remembering today)
The defence of Muslims will continue to be a central demand of the Stop the War Coalition - stop the racist backlash was one of the three central demands of the anti war movement
However there is a wider layer of people that can be won to active opposition to the EDL and the BNP than just those who are opposed to the ‘war on terror’.
That is why UAF was a wider appeal winning opposition to Islamophobia than STWC.
An excellent article from George - he is undoubtedly one of the most consistent and powerful opponents of Islamophobia. And the attack on Muslims is indeed an attack on us all. However opposition to Islamophobia must not be restricted to opponents of the ‘war on terror’
Comment by Mark Krantz — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
The Muslim Association of Britain endorsed me, a Jew, when I stood as a Respect candidate in the last general election.
They did not endorse the Lib Dem Muslim candidate standing in the same constituency.
My role in the anti war movement was key - not religion.
Comment by Mark Krantz — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:46 pm
“My role in the anti war movement was key - not religion.”
Are you anti-Zionist?
Comment by Rootless Cosmpolitan — 14 March, 2010 @ 11:56 pm
Is not that obvious!
Comment by Mark Krantz — 15 March, 2010 @ 12:01 am
Mark Krantz: I really fear that the recent arguments in the SWP, leading to the parting of the ways with those who lead Stop the War, is in danger of clouding your discussion on this.
“Paki-bashing” had nothing to do with attacking Muslims, as Muslims. Just look at the names of the victims. Look also at the contours of the racist ideologies of the time.
The most salient point in the above article is that Islamophobia is more than simply another anti-immigrant racism. It is that, alloyed with an ideology of war that projects and external enemy connected to the enemy within. I don’t see how recognising the specificity of anti-Muslim racism leads to narrowing the base of the movement. In fact, I think it is crucial to challenging the widespread acceptance of various Islamophobic claims.
Comment by nas — 15 March, 2010 @ 12:35 am
Nas
Amongst the MP’s who have called for a mobilisation to oppose the EDL in Bolton (see 9 above)
are Ruth Kelly MP, Sir Gerald Kaufman MP, Margaret Hodge MP, Dawn Butler MP, and Beverley Hughes MP - all are supporters of and voted for ‘the war on terror’
They, and many others, can be won to oppose the anti muslim racism of the EDL and the BNP, despite their support of the war (against Muslims) abroad
This is not cloudy thinking but a material fact
The defence of muslims is so important today that we need to build the biggest and broadest movement possible.
Comment by Mark Krantz — 15 March, 2010 @ 12:49 am
Indeed, Mark. But isn’t the point of the article above that the fight against Islamophobia is deeper and more extensive than the simply confronting the EDL and BNP?
Comment by nas — 15 March, 2010 @ 12:59 am
Nas
I am completely in support of the article, and my previous posts have defended it against attacks
my point is that there is a debate needed that builds upon George’s point that ‘The BNP and EDL should be confronted and exposed.’
he, rightly acknowledges this as being neccessary, indeed essential
how best to confront the EDL and the BNP ?
this question has been debated on previous posts on this site
some have argued against confrontation, leave it to the police, ignore them, they are not a threat etc
George. I believe is right - they must be confronted
How do we build the biggest broadest most effective movement to confront them?
Comment by Mark Krantz — 15 March, 2010 @ 1:10 am
Excellent article from Galloway. This situation is getting very serious and worrying. Behind the boots and fists of the braindead EDL thugs are the countless ‘liberals’ drip-feeding and legitimising their prejudice with their ‘concern’ and distaste for muslim weddings, muslim women, imaginary muslim block votes and in fact pretty much anything that involves muslims. Go to the Guardian’s Comment is Free website and see what a sewer of anti-muslim bigotry that is. This is leading in a very dangerous direction, and we need to get our act together fast to counter it.
Comment by dennis — 15 March, 2010 @ 2:19 am
A timely article by Mr Galloway.
I was always confident that the T&G would represent my interests and I opposed omov at the Brighton Ne Labour conference as a Blairite ploy to weaken the strength of socialism in politics.
In the wider movement, such as churches, have used block voting as a tool of division and in most cases anti socialist
Jimmy Reid (communist)lost the Clydebank election because the bishop Tom Winning instructed his flock to vote labour.
The power of block voting by the wider movement’s constituencies is one we cannot dismiss or oppose. It can only be repelled by a committed trade union and labour movement that of course includes churches and religious groups
Mr Galloway’s understanding is perfectly correct and one we should be at least aware of.
Comment by LarryN — 15 March, 2010 @ 5:55 am
2#Say that in Govan where the Muslim vote was 50/50 between the SNP and Labour. I also remember the selection process between Sarwar and Watson with the Labour party Muslim members split two ways, no I think they think for themselves. Not lobby fodder at all.
Comment by gloom n doom — 15 March, 2010 @ 9:37 am
26# If I remember right Jimmy never put Communist Party on his papers and stood as an “Engineering Worker” or something, lost a wee bit of credability. Oh God ahm getting to old for this one step forward two back all the time for the left, but those were good days.
Comment by gloom n doom — 15 March, 2010 @ 9:52 am
Its amazing how the content of this article seem to be disregarded by many comments above, and the focus seems to be on article someone with a more sinister motive seems to have left a link for!!! I’m sure it isn’t written by a Shiekh Galloway!!!! I can’t see what this has to do with the article above, give your Islamaphobic ideas a rest and lets focus on policy not on the deflecting nonsense being spouted.
Comment by Mohammed Saleem — 15 March, 2010 @ 10:30 am
Well done to George for succinctly framing the situation.
Respect are well placed to develop the alliances that will be necessary after the General Election. Even without any Respect MPs the post election conference mentioned by George looks to be very promising.
Comment by daveyboy — 15 March, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
An excellent article by Galloway. It’s good to see most of us on the left uniting against the racist scum that peddle Islamophobia and the left apologists for war.
I’ve been complaining to the BBC about it’s bias against Muslims. “Generation Jihad” was one of their latest scaremongering scams to bump up the ratings.
This horrendous programme implied that young Muslims who were against the war were a threat because they identified the UK and US as a threat to Muslims in the Middle East. I pointed out in my complaint that millions demonstrated against the war and public opinion has been consistently against these wars so why didn’t this programme describe them as a threat too? The programme tried to portray young Muslims who are against the war as a fifth column and even had the gall to accuse those protesting against the murder of a man and his son in Gaza by the IDF of using this despicable act as so-called “anti-semitic propaganda.” What rubbish!
The reply I got from the producer was the usual supercilious nonsense about this programme being an unbiased report of a so-called “real threat”. In my complaint I pointed out that Muslims were not rioting in Stoke attacking people like the EDL but he predictably compared young radicalised Muslims to the EDL as justification for the programmes scaremongering. What a cop out!
I really encourage everyone to regularly make complaints about media bias against Muslims. Together we can really undermine the racist propaganda being perpetuated by the media. Anyone who isn’t aware of the media workers campaign against the BNP can check it out here:
http://exposethebnp.com/
Comment by Ray — 15 March, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
A courageous and principled article by George Galloway, as always. But then courage is something he has always had, ever since he stood up to the false accusations of the Senate Committeemany years ago.
The tide of hatred against Muslims and all things Islamic has been rising for several years, even though Islam is about peace. The attacks on Mosques and individuals are secreted in the News In Briefs of newspapers and their broadcasting equivalents, if at all. The flotsam and jetsam that has been thrown up by this tide is found everywhere, from the Melanie Phillips ‘reasonable’ school of hysteria to the Liberal and periodic weighings-in of the broadsheets and their cultural representatives e.g. Dominic Lawson, Michael Gove, Martin Amis. One by one, apparently objective folk are being swept along by this tide of hysteria and filth.
At my art class three weeks ago, several of my pupils, all over the age of fifty started an impromptu ‘discussion’ about the threat of Muslims in this country.The vitriole poured from the mouths of these ladies of a lower and middle-income background was sickening. Naturally, I disabused them of their prejudices. In this ‘discussion’, Muslims were accused of taking ‘our work’ ( yes, the work we consider too demeaning or demanding to do)at the same time as ‘living off benefits.’They were accused of ‘forcing their religion’ on the rest of the great British public,of not integrating, or else of having the audacity to involve themselves in what is not their business, the community and politics. They reserved most of their anger for the ‘insult’ that wearing a Burkha represents even though they were silent when I suggested that Muslims have to put up with a continuous barrage of porn and alcohol-fuelled anti-social behaviour here in the YUK.
Asian workers in my local shop have to put up with continuous barracking about being a rip-off and being ‘Paki.’They laugh and smile graciously even when they are sworn at by youths and older people buying alcohol. The young people hang around the shop doorway, bring their dogs in the shop or encourage them to defecate outside the premises, attack the windows at night and drop their goods on the floor, etc. Readers of this will be all-too familiar with the scenario.
This is a scenario played out to varying degrees internationally.
The worst thing we can do is to be silent.
Comment by Linda Scott — 15 March, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
32 “Naturally, I disabused them of their prejudices.”
Oh, er, naturally Linda.
Are you related to Linda Snell off the Archers?
Comment by Jonny Mac — 16 March, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
The EDL should be confronted alright, but not by you. Opportunists and terrorist fans are NOT WELCOME in the anti-racism movement.
Comment by anonymous — 16 March, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Note to readers from Chaim Weizmann AGAIN: “Sir William Evans-Gordon had no particular anti-Jewish prejudices…he was sincerely ready to encourage any settlement of Jews almost anywhere in the British Empire but he failed to see why the ghettoes of London or Leeds should be made into a branch of the ghettoes of Warsaw and Pinsk.”
Comment by No Name — 16 March, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
@32
‘The reply I got from the producer was the usual supercilious nonsense about this programme being an unbiased report of a so-called “real threat”. In my complaint I pointed out that Muslims were not rioting in Stoke attacking people like the EDL but he predictably compared young radicalised Muslims to the EDL as justification for the programmes scaremongering. What a cop out!’
I really encourage everyone to regularly make complaints about media bias against Muslims. Together we can really undermine the racist propaganda being perpetuated by the media. Anyone who isn’t aware of the media workers campaign against the BNP can check it out here: ‘
Have you also complained about the depiction of unemployed people and the ‘demonisation’ of those on disbaility benefits through the prime time TV programmes that the BBC has been broadcasting,eg On the Fiddle,the Day The Immigrants Left’, even having Emma Harrison the multi-millionaire training’ entrepreneur on its latest ‘Celebs as Dolies’ programme. The far left is obsessed by identity politics to the exclusion of fighting on basic issues and i predict more young people,etc will move to the EDL and what comes after it if this doesn’t change.
Comment by history tells us things — 16 March, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
“We need some honesty.” Yawn…
How about we start by admitting that Hamas in it’s early form was largely funded by Israel specifically to sow discord amongst the Palestinian population and weaken support for the secular PLO.?
Comment by Omar — 16 March, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
Jewishness has nothing to do with M&P - there is substantial evidence to support Omar’s contention that Israel did indeed support Hamas financially in its early days, as a counterweight to weaken the PLO.
Comment by tinga — 16 March, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
If you say so Minsk, and born-again Christians with a new book to sell are a reliable source?
BTW, Israel and Jew are not interchangeable.
Comment by Omar — 16 March, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
“Yawn….everything is a Jewish plot, Omar.”
Israels funding of Hamas is well documented. They made no secret of it and their intention was to undermine the PLO. Just like the US funded the Taliban in an attempt to undermine the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
If you were a good Zionist you’d know that there are no barriers to who you will do a deal with.
If you think that pointing out hypocrisy and racism is anti-Semitic then how do you explain the many Jews who criticise Israel and condemned its recent attack on Gaza? Was it anti-white to campaign against apartheid in South Africa? Of course not! Black and white, Palestinian and Jew do not benefit from racism. The only people who enjoy seeing Israel oppress Palestinians are the same people who sent Jews to the gas chambers. Think about it!
Comment by Ray — 16 March, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
Linda thats a shocker of an art class, i just hope the ladies hace better artistic skills than their politics. Your local shop and the experience of its owners is sadly replicated all over, ive had a few run ins with the types you describe, pissed jakies and surly, racist youth.
Comment by eamonn wright — 16 March, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
Wow. Such an excellent article. Thanks for reposting it.
Comment by Duncan Chapel — 19 March, 2010 @ 8:05 pm