|
« Why won't Britain listen?
Main |
November 25, 2003
Mr Lee gets it
Terrifically important speech by Singapore's former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew who has said the Europeans have completely failed to grasp that al Q'aeda is a totally new phenomenon and one that cannot be equated to terrorism as we have known it in the IRA, Red Brigades and so on. Events in Morocco, he says, are now capable of triggering terror in Indonesia. And he makes the classic argument against the appeasement culture that has gripped Britain and Europe: 'Many Europeans think they can finesse the problem, that if they don't upset Muslim countries and treat Muslims well, the terrorists won't target them.' But that is a fallacy, he says, demonstrated by the terror threat in south-east Asia : 'Muslims have prospered here. But still, Muslim terrorism and militancy have infected them.' And he spells out the manipulative tactics that have fooled so many in Europe: 'The terrorists' tactics for the time being are to hit only Americans, Jews and America's strong supporters, the British, the Italians, the Turks, warning the Japanese but leaving others alone. They intend to divide and conquer.' But he also says that American-style force won't get to grips with the problem either because this merely removes the 'worker bees'. To combat the menace, the queen bees have to be destroyed -- the clerics who spread their twisted vision of Islam, brainwashing the young and inctiing them to mass murder. To combat this, America must throw its weight behind moderate, reformist Muslims. 'Only Muslims can win this struggle,' he says. This is surely absolutely right. These brave Muslims who are trying to drag their culture towards reform, and who take their lives in their hands to do so, should be getting our unstinting support. But this cannot happen unless and until Britain and America stop talking about 'a few extremists' and start facing up to the true scale and nature of the threat we all face. Posted by melanie at November 25, 2003
Comments
Why Britain can never be trusted by the Jewish people. The Jerusalem Post Nov. 25, 2003 Menachem Begin's bag and baggage With much earnestness, prime minister Margaret Thatcher once confided to prime minister Menachem Begin her fervent admiration for the Jews. "It has to do with my Methodist upbringing," she told him. "Methodism, you see, means method. It means" – her fingers instinctively bunched into a fist – "sticking to your guns, dedication, determination, triumph over adversity, reverence for education – the very qualities you Jews have always cherished." Mr. Begin, whom she had invited to 10 Downing Street for lunch shortly after her election victory in 1979, responded with a small, modest smile. "I cannot deny," said he, "that millennia ago, when monarchs did not even know how to sign their own names, our forefathers had already developed a system of compulsory education." Thatcher's eyes were ablaze with enthusiasm. "Your marvelous chief rabbi here, Sir Immanuel Jakobovits, recently made exactly the same point. He said that the term 'an illiterate Jew' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. How right he is! He has " – she paused as if to refresh her stock of awe and respect – "such a high moral stature, such an undaunted courage, such an inspiring commitment to the old-fashioned virtues, like community self-help, individual responsibility, and personal accountability – all the things I deeply believe in." Then, with sudden exasperation in her voice and a frown on her brow, "Oh, how I wish our own Christian leaders would take a leaf out of his book." Begin nodded an acknowledgement, but said nothing. Perhaps this was because he thought it would be indiscreet to concur. Or, perhaps, it was because he and chief rabbi Sir Immanuel Jakobovits, champion of Israel and celebrated Judaic scholar whom Thatcher would later elevate to the peerage, did not always see eye-to-eye on the Jewish state's vision of itself. The two prime ministers were standing chatting in what is called the Blue Room when the house manager rapped three times on the floor and announced, "Prime Minister, gentlemen, lunch is now served." "Do you know," continued Mrs. Thatcher doughtily as she led the way into the oak-paneled state dining room, "in all the many years I have represented Finchley, my parliamentary constituency, which as you know has a high proportion of Jewish residents, I have never once had a Jew come to me in poverty and desperation. They are always so well looked after by their own. And that is absolutely splendid!" Pundits would postulate that it was this cast of mind that accounted for the remarkably high number of Jews in the various Thatcher governments — six at one time or another, in addition to close advisers. And in a class-conscious society where the aristocracy was solidly Anglican, her Methodist roots made her an ambitious outsider. So, yes, it was natural for her to see Jews as kindred spirits. They provided refreshing ballast to the paternalistic Tories of the old school squirearchy, where anti-Semitism was commonplace, while Jews were not. "Now, let's talk about your country," said Mrs. Thatcher affably, as they reached the table and took their seats, accompanied by half a dozen colleagues and aides, me amongst them. Lord Peter Carrington, the foreign secretary, full of the self-confident repartee common to graduates of Eton and Sandhurst, ho-hummed in the authoritative, patronizing warble of the British upper class: "I bet you a wager, Mr. Begin, that I know what passed through your mind when we were introduced earlier, before lunch." "Do you, Lord Carrington? I'm not a betting man, but please tell me: what did pass through my mind?" An impudent and impish smile hovered over his features. The whole table grinned at the cheekiness of the banter. The foreign secretary chuckled devilishly. "You were thinking to yourself: By George, those Camel Corps chaps at the British Foreign Office are a bunch of Arabists besotted with an irredeemable proclivity toward the Arab interests. Am I not right? Come on – own up." He threw an audacious smile and pointed two fingers like a pistol to add to the tease. Begin raised his arms in a don't-shoot pose, his eyes bright with mirth. "Amazing! Totally correct! And you put it so well, Lord Carrington." THATCHER, LAYING on all her charm, said sportingly, "Oh, come, come, prime minister, you know Peter's just teasing. You know very well you have good friends here in Whitehall, even if we don't always see eye-to-eye on everything." "Delicious. Your thoughtfulness is appreciated." Lord Carrington's gung-ho jousting vanished. Flatly, he answered, "Your bag-and-baggage approach toward settlements, mostly." It is intemperate. It is a barrier to peace. The settlements are built on occupied Arab soil. They rob Palestinians of their land. They unnecessarily arouse the animosity of the moderate Arabs. They are contrary to international law – the Geneva Convention. They are inconsistent with British interests." In a voice like steel wrapped in velvet, Margaret Thatcher affirmed, "The foreign secretary is speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in this matter." Begin chose to fight Carrington, not Thatcher. He leaned forward to focus his fullest attention on him. The two men's eyes traded malevolence. Then he let fly: The settlements were not an obstacle to peace. No Palestinian Arab sovereignty had ever existed in the biblical provinces of Judea and Samaria. The Geneva Convention did not apply. The Arabs had refused to make peace before there was a single settlement anywhere. The settlements were built on state-owned, not Arab-owned, land. Their construction was an assertion of basic Jewish historic rights. The settlement enterprise was critical to Israel's national security. Abruptly, Begin turned to face Margaret Thatcher. "Madam Prime Minister," he said in a voice that brooked no indifference, "your foreign secretary dismisses my country's historic rights. He pooh-poohs our vital security needs. So, I shall tell you why the settlements are vital: because I speak of Eretz Yisrael, a land redeemed, not occupied; because without these settlements Israel could be at the mercy of a Palestinian state astride the commanding heights of Judea and Samaria. We would be living on borrowed time. And," – his face went granite, like his eyes – "whenever we Jews are attacked we are always alone. Remember in 1944 how we came begging for our lives – begging at this very door?" "No, Madam, not Auschwitz. We asked you to bomb the railway lines leading to Auschwitz. In the summer of 1944 Eichmann was transporting a hundred thousand Hungarian Jews a week along those lines." Menachem Begin went white. Clearly, the woman had not been briefed who this man was – a survivor of a Soviet gulag, a survivor of the Shoah, orphaned of virtually his whole family. "But Madam, this was 1944," he said in a low voice reserved for dreaded things. "The Allies had all but won the war. You were sending a thousand bombers a night over Germany. What would it have taken to divert 70, 60, 50, aircraft to bomb those lines?" CARRINGTON WENT puce. The shocked silence was interrupted only when Mrs. Thatcher emitted a genteel cough. "Gentlemen," she said in a voice of uncommon informality, "I am not certain I understand why, but it is my impression that whenever the Holy Land comes up for discussion powerful emotions are stirred and tempers get frayed. It seems to me that we Britishers display a rather — how can I put it? — un-English passion on the matter." The foreign secretary took off his spectacles, breathed on them, polished each lens in turn with a handkerchief from his top pocket of his Saville Row suit, seemed about to speak but didn't, and then changed his mind and did: "Quite right, Prime Minister," he said apologetically. "Somehow, your little country, Mr. Begin, evokes all sorts of high emotional fevers. Stirs up the blood, so to speak. Amazing!" "Not really," said Begin, smiling in an unmirthful way, his composure regained. "The story of the Jewish people is very much a tale of survival against bouts of irrationality and hysteria. It occurs in every generation." The writer, a veteran diplomat, was an adviser to four prime ministers, including Menachem Begin. avner28@netvision.net.il http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1069742947320 interesting article. I am sad to read that Mrs. Tahtcher would have done the exact same thing as her predecessors reagrdingthe bombing of the Auschwitz railway lines. Even a sympathetic person suchas the Iron Lady would view the saving of Jewishlives as an afterthought. Posted by: Travis at November 25, 2003 03:34 PMWas that coated with lots of sugar Pooh, it was really syrupy. Did Carrington think perhaps he was playing the role of Lord Halifax or Anthony Eden dealing with Ribbentrop or his master ? Greater Israel or Greater Germany ? The justification from Begin sounded just as valid as discussions at Bad Godesberg. Thank you for highlighting the similarities, which we sometimes forget. Did Thatcher remind Begin about his desertion from the Army ? Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 25, 2003 04:23 PM"bombing of the Auschwitz railway lines. Even a sympathetic person suchas the Iron Lady "
'We should have made this the core of our war aims, and sacrificed every land bRitish soldier and airmen to this objective. After all isn't that the sole raison d'etre for this country " What on earth are you talking about? Back to the original post. Bush gets it. So does Rummy. Re-read the famous leaked Rumsfeld memo and note how many times he mentions the word madrassa. He knows where the problem originates. Read the text of President Bush's speech at the Banqueting Hall. He offers Muslims an alternative to fundamentalist rule. Freedom, democracy, the rule of law. And he puts the full weight of America behind these concepts. The pity is that people don't listen when the Bush administration says these things. They are too busy decrying 'cowboy diplomacy' or marvelling that Bush can speak at all to pay attention to the content. Some people have characterised the current situation as a Muslim civil war, and to some extent that's true, but a look at the news from North Africa, East Africa, West Africa, Asia, South East Asia, and just about anywhere in the world you will find the fundamentalists kill moderate Muslims, Christians, Hindu's, Buddhists, plain old secular agnostics and of course Jews. Look closer and you will find that schools and mosques have appeared that preach the fundamentalist creed. Look closer still and you might find out where the money for these schools and mosques comes from. It would be nice if our major broadcaster, the one with correspondents, (I wish they still had reporters), in all these places, were to put together a program that connected all the dots, but I suppose that is too much to hope for. Kevin Posted by: Kevin at November 25, 2003 04:45 PMThanks Travis - I had not realised, but as I am British we are all evil in the eyes of Conrad Black's Jerusalem Post. You, your Arab brethren, Black Africa, and of cause the Irish, are all obsessional about the British. You know once you have read Kipling about "The White Man's Burden...." you get used to these inadequates who blame the British for everything. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 25, 2003 05:48 PMWhat the hell are you talking about? I haven't "blamed the British for everything" as you claim. As a matter of fact I have defended Britain many times from verbal attacks by IRA sympathizers in this country and have talked many people into visitng London which is my second favorite city int he world (NY is number 1, Asmterdam #3). I was just pointing out a sad historical fact. My own country the USA also failed the supreme moral test of the 20th century, that does not make the USA evil. You had Ernest Bevin, we had Breckinridge Long (Assistant Sec. of State who sabotaged rescue plans). Having an anti Semite or xenophope in a postion of power does not make a country bad, just flawed. I will always believe in an alliance between the UK and the US. The partneeship between FDR and Churchill, Reagan and Thatcher, Bush and Blair is one of the great safety nets for the free world. P.S. - if I was an anglophobe I would not have visited the UK 13 times since 1979! On my last trip two weeks ago I spent an interesting morning at the Imperial War Museum and later that afternoon visited the cabinet War Rooms. Posted by: Trtavis at November 25, 2003 07:19 PMAs a point of historical fact, command of RAF Bomber Command was passed to SHAEF as early as April 1944 in preparation for Operation Overlord, the invasion of Europe. RAF Commander-in Chief Sir Arthur Harris was ordered to do everything possible to assist the Allied Armies in preparation for and in the weeks following D-Day. The only point of variance from the policy was the brief period of Operation Crossbow, during which the RAF attacked V1 rocket sights. Harris railed at this but domestic public opinion had to be assuaged. He was finally released from army support by Eisenhower in the second week of September, and returned immediately to oil and area attacks on the Reich. Thatcher was right. The jews request would never have stood a chance. Posted by: Guessedworker at November 25, 2003 10:30 PMThe 15th Air Force based in Italy did bomb the Auschwitz area in 1944. There are photos which they took over Auschwitz-Birkenau. They were going to bomb the synthetic fuel factory at Auschwitz III Monowitz so the talk that they could not have bombed the railways at Auschwitz is bogus. Check out the photos in Sir Martin Gilbert's book "Auschwitz and the Allies." The 15th Air Force was based in Foggia Italy and had nothing to do with Opeartion Overlord. Later in 1944 they tried to drop suppleis to the Home Army in Warsaw during their uprising but Stalin refused to allow them to land in Soviet territory. Robert Morgenthau who was Sec. of the Treasury, a friend of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the guiding force behind the ultimate establishment of The War Refugee Board in January 1944, called the British Foreign Office memo which dismissed all attempts to help save Jews as "cold and calculating, and amounting to a sentence of death." Posted by: Marcus at November 26, 2003 02:52 AMThis old chesnut again. I see Marcus, like Pooh never leaves an Email address on this site and is possessed of only one name. THe flights to Warsaw in support of the AK were very costly and were stopped. The loss of South African air crew was horrific and Slessor I believe stopped the missions. Flight #.1586 PAF had 6 a/c on 1 Aug not one reached Warsaw. Churchill sent #.148 Squadron on 4 Aug 7 Polish and 7 British planes set off - only 3 Polish a/c made it to Warsaw: of 14 planes each with 7 crew, 3 got through, 6 destroyed. At this time the USSR had airbases 80 km from Warsaw. In 6 weeks of the Warsaw Rising in August 1944 250.000 Polish civilians were killed and 26.000 German/Ukrainian troops.........the Red Army was stuck on the west bank of the Vistula. The city was cleared by the Nazis with all civilians being sent to Pruschkow concentration camp and the city of Warsaw levelled by Sappers and artillery. The Red Army entered the moonscape in September. The a/c flying towards Warsaw ran into heavy AA fire....an army like the Wehrmacht needed heavy AA cover to ward off Soviet fighters. Very few a/c could reach Warsaw, few returned. There are cemeteries there for those airmen. Revisionists treat men of that time like marionnettes trying to make them dance to their own agenda. Maybe Comrade Stalin did not rush to Auschwitz first, he had Sobibor to deal with.......and was losing men by the thousands. At least 2 million Soviet POWs were starved to death in German hands. I think the whole war should have been focused on protecting my family, so they did not need to die in such numbers. I wonder how many other families had the same thoughts ? Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 26, 2003 08:20 AMeast bank of the Vistula ....my map was upside down Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 26, 2003 08:21 AMApart from demonstrating that some people can read, and selectively quote from, history books, what on earth do these posts have to do with Melanie's piece? When this new site first came into being, most posts were thoughtful and to the point. It has since become a playground for the worst kind of Internet bore and pedant. Posted by: JKF at November 26, 2003 01:26 PM"To combat this, America must throw its weight behind moderate, reformist Muslims. 'Only Muslims can win this struggle,' he says." I completely agree, and I think the Administration does as well, but this is a tough nut to crack. In the mean time, we must defend ourselves and do what we can with 'external' reform until somebody in the muslim world steps up to the plate. There just don't seem to be that many moderate muslims willing to stand up and take sides against the tyranical and terrorists factions. Granted, doing so is a sure way to pick up a fatwah, but for Yew's ideas to get any traction, something has to give here. Either the moderates don't think this is really a problem for Islam, or there aren't enough bold ones yet to make a difference. As always, the broad solution is obvious, but the devil is in the details. Posted by: Richard Cox at November 27, 2003 02:15 AM"Apart from demonstrating that some people can read, and selectively quote from, history books, what on earth do these posts have to do with Melanie's piece?" Can you read JKF ? Then tell us what piece by Melanie you are referring to. Posted by: Romulus at November 29, 2003 12:58 PMIn his errors a man is true to type. Observe the errors and you will know the man. After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood. Posted by: Nardo Abby at December 20, 2003 11:41 PMAn unimportant door is never locked. Posted by: Perlov George at January 9, 2004 11:52 AMHello, have fun with easy blogging!
Good work. |
