In Britain, Muslims React To Cameron's Recent Anti-Extremism Speech (videos)

The following two videos relate to British prime minister David Cameron's recent speech in Birmingham as outlined here

In this video (which also features Jonathan Fryer, a journalist specialising in counter-extremism and counter-terrorism issues, who warns inter alia of Saudi-financed Wahhabism) Manchester-based Reza Nadeem of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, unequivocally condemns Cameron's speech. The way Muslims are lectured, Mr Nadeem says, "is so deeply Islamophobic it's off-putting" and excoriates calls for "integration" because, he maintains, "assimilation" is meant by that concept.  He insists that if Muslims are to be placated and feel part of British society Britain's "unjust foreign policy ... needs to change" and inevitably "Palestine" is mentioned (at approx. 11:58 particularly).

In this footage some distinctly less urbane voices react to Cameron's speech.  In fact, one member of the crowd cautions a particularly raucous speaker not to "scream or shout or people will take it the wrong way".  The Crusaders and the East India Company figure in the screeching rant, but so, specifically, do Jews and Christians – the former more than once.  (Highlights, if that's the appropriate term, at approximately 2:10, 4:13, 4:47).

David Singer: "Growing Islamoparanoia Needs To Be Contained – If Rampant Islamophobia Is Not Allowed To Run Riot"

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It's entitled "Islam Must Degrade And Destroy Islamic State".


He writes:

The impassioned plea by the father of a Jordanian F16 fighter pilot captured by Islamic State has shot down attempts by American President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to distance Islam from the Islamic State (ISIL). Speaking to the media, the father of Islamic State’s star captive, 1st Lt. Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh, said:

“I direct a message to our generous brothers of the Islamic State in Syria: to host my son, the pilot Mu’ath, with generous hospitality. I ask God that their hearts are gathered together with love, and that he is returned to his family, wife and mother.

We are all Muslims.”

This desperate cry for mercy stands in stark contrast to what President Obama stressed at a media conference in August:

“Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice a different religion.

They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” 

  Cameron has been equally as strident:

'We should be clear: this is not the “War on Terror”, nor is it a war of religions. It is a struggle for decency, tolerance and moderation in our modern world. It is a battle against a poisonous ideology that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim.'

Abbott was eager to support Obama and Cameron’s statements – telling a media conference during the Martin Place siege in Sydney last week:

'But the point I keep making is that the ISIL death cult has nothing to do with any religion, any real religion.'

These presidential and prime ministerial statements had followed a most explicit condemnation of Islamic State by Iyad Ameen Madani – the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – the collective voice of the Muslim world – representing 57 countries over four continents comprising 1.4 billion Muslims – the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations.

Must read: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4966/christians-churches-attacked

 As Vatican Radio reported on 25 July:

'In a statement, he [Madani] officially denounced the "forced deportation under the threat of execution” of Christians, calling it a "crime that cannot be tolerated.” The Secretary General also distanced Islam from the actions of the militant group known as ISIS, saying they "have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.'

Yet the simple plea of one distraught Jordanian parent pleading for his son to be set free – stressing that “we are all Muslims” – will certainly sheet home the distinct unease being felt by non-Muslims living in Sydney – still reeling from the Lindt Chocolat Café siege and subsequent shoot out in Martin Place killing two innocent civilians and the self-styled Islamic cleric who perpetrated the siege.

Such unease subsequently found the head of the Australian Defence League and two other people being charged over a brawl near a mosque in Sydney's Islamic heartland – Lakemba.

The news that Sulayman Khalid, 20, was one of two men arrested on Christmas Eve as part of an ongoing counter-terrorism investigation into the alleged planning of a terrorist attack on Australian soil – has only increased such unease.

As the Daily Telegraph reported:

“Khalid, also known as Abu Bakr, appeared earlier this year on SBS’s Insight wearing a jacket emblazoned with the Islamic State flag and stormed off the set when questioned about his support for IS fighters.”

France has this week also seen three supposedly “lone wolf” incidents allegedly involving “deranged” Muslim perpetrators in:

1. Nantes – when a van was driven into a crowd killing one and wounding 9 other shoppers

2. Dijon – where a man shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is greatest” in Arabic) injured 13 in a similar attack to that in Nantes

3. Tours – where an attacker – also yelling “Allahu Akbar” – was shot dead after stabbing three police officers

Meaningless OIC condemnatory statements designed to distance Islam from Islamic State are no longer sufficient.

Surely the time has come for the OIC to galvanise its member States into pledging unified Islamic military action to degrade and destroy Islamic State.

Such steps could include:

1. OIC resolving that all 57 member States join the American-led coalition of 62 States presently fighting Islamic State.

Presently only 13 of those Islamic States have joined the coalition. Major Islamic States – such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, Pakistan and Nigeria remain uncommitted.

2. Making a unified Islamic approach to the United Nations Security Council by sponsoring a resolution calling for the use of armed force by the United Nations against Islamic State under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Four Islamic States – Malaysia, Nigeria, Chad and Jordan – are members of the UN Security Council and provide an effective bloc to pressure the Security Council – particularly those States exercising a veto - into taking such action.

Growing Islamoparanoia needs to be contained – if rampant Islamophobia is not allowed to run riot.

David Singer: Palestine – Goodbye Land Swaps, Hello Land Grants

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.



He writes:

The two-state solution has suddenly come back to life.

Thought dead and buried after Hamas had shown that it could indiscriminately fire rockets from Gaza into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem over a 50-day period – even forcing international carriers to cancel flights into Ben-Gurion International Airport for 24 hours – Caroline Glick reported on its amazing resurrection:

'Something extraordinary has happened.

On August 31, PLO chief and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told an audience of Fatah members that Egypt had offered to give the PA some 1,600 kilometers of land in Sinai adjacent to Gaza, thus quintupling the size of the Gaza Strip. Egypt even offered to allow all the so-called "Palestinian refugees" to settle in the expanded Gaza Strip.

Then Abbas told his Fatah followers that he rejected the Egyptian offer.

On Monday Army Radio substantiated Abbas's claim.

According to Army Radio, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi proposed that the Palestinians establish their state in the expanded Gaza Strip and accept limited autonomy over parts of Judea and Samaria.

In exchange for this state, the Palestinians would give up their demand that Israel shrink into the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, surrendering Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Sisi argued that the land Egypt is offering in Sinai would more than compensate for the territory that Abbas would concede.

In his speech to Fatah members, Abbas said, "They [the Egyptians] are prepared to receive all the refugees, [and are saying] 'Let's end the refugee story.'" "But," he insisted, "It's illogical for the problem to be solved at Egypt's expense. We won't have it." 

The Secretary-General of Abbas' office – al-Tayyib Abd al-Rahim – said the reports were "fabricated".

Arutz Sheva reported:

“Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Monday denied reports that he had offered to establish a Palestinian state in the Sinai Peninsula – the website of Egypt’s Al-Ahram newspaper reported.

In a speech to mark national teachers' day and which mostly dealt with education Sisi stressed that no one can make such promises and that there is no room for talk about the matter.”

Amidst these claims and denials  – the idea of land grants by Egypt, and also Jordan – now remain the last route to peacefully creating the two-state solution so earnestly sought by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

President Obama’s policy for bringing such a state to fruition was expressed in his State Department speech on 19 May 2011 – which has now been well and truly trashed as a result of the latest Israel-Hamas War:

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.“ 

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s remarks at a joint press conference with President Obama in London on 25 May 2011 now sound equally as ludicrous in 2014:

"… the Palestinians need to know that we understand their need for dignity and for a Palestinian state, using the ’67 borders as land swaps as the start point. That is I think what is so key to the speech that’s been made. So neither side now has I believe the excuse to stand aside from talks."

 At the time I wrote the following:

“Now in 2011 – apparently to satisfy the Palestinians “need for dignity “ – Israel is being asked by America and Britain to consider transferring sovereignty of Israeli land to a sovereign Palestine to compensate that State for the loss of any areas of the West Bank and East Jerusalem that Israel seeks to retain.

This is a request that is doomed to failure in the light of Israel‘s escalating security and national interests – particularly in the face of the dramatic developments that have taken place in Egypt and Jordan in recent months and the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.

… To believe Israel should now offer additional Israeli territory to bring the border between it and a sovereign Palestine closer to the heartland of Israel is irrational and absurd.

For Obama and Cameron to espouse such a policy seems the height of folly and farce.”

 I also pointed out at the time:

“If Arab dignity is the key – then there is another policy that should be explored – the grant of sovereign Jordanian land to the Palestinian Authority equivalent to the area of the West Bank land retained by Israel.

The area of Jordanian land required to satisfy such Palestinian dignity is extremely small. The entire area of the West Bank is only 5640 km2. Assuming Israel’s security needs necessitated it to acquire sovereignty in 20% of the West Bank – Jordan would be required to make a land grant of about 1130 km2 to a sovereign Palestine. Given Jordan‘s area is 92300 km2 – compared to Israel’s 22070 sq km2 – Jordan’s security and national interests would hardly be affected."

Obama’s land swap proposals – enthusiastically backed by Cameron – have now become the latest in a long line of lost opportunities presented in 1937, 1947, 1948-1967, 2000, 2008 and 2014 to create a second Arab State in Mandatory Palestine – in addition to Jordan.

Land grants by Egypt and Jordan are lifelines desperately needed by Obama now – if the two-state solution is ever to eventuate.

As Obama signs up Egypt and Jordan to join his coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State – he might just be whispering this politically savvy message in their ears.

Pamela's Easter Message

That slippery chap, British prime minister David Cameron, has been addressing a gathering of practising Christians in Britain.

The Church Times gives his speech verbatim; here's part of it:

 "....Some people feel that in this ever more secular age we shouldn't talk about these things. I completely disagree. I believe we should be more confident about our status as a Christian country, more ambitious about expanding the role of faith-based organisations, and, frankly, more evangelical about a faith that compels us to get out there and make a difference to people's lives.

First, being more confident about our status as a Christian country does not somehow involve doing down other faiths or passing judgement on those with no faith at all. Many people tell me it is easier to be Jewish or Muslim in Britain than in a secular country precisely because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths, too.

Crucially, the Christian values of responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, and love are shared by people of every faith and none - and we should be confident in standing up to defend them.

People who, instead, advocate some sort of secular neutrality fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality, or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code. Of course, faith is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality.

Many atheists and agnostics live by a moral code - and there are Christians who don't. But for people who do have a faith, that faith can be a guide or a helpful prod in the right direction - and, whether inspired by faith or not, that direction or moral code matters...."

The Jewish Chronicle  has duly extracted the part of the speech that it considers relevant to Anglo-Jewry, and a hardcore Israel-hater has called attention to it on his Facebook page.

 A keen follower of his, who is also a Facebook friend of Stephen Sizer, has responded:

Other Facebook posts over recent weeks from the same lady (is she, by any chance, the Pamela Hardyment whose intemperate letter to an arm of the Board of Deputies in 2007 features here?) include:

 

Not posts that reflect Christian love and mercy, are they?

How about a blood libel?

Does Stephen Sizer (who as I've observed before really ought to be more discerning regarding the company he keeps on Facebook) really want such a lady as a Friend?

Putting The BS Into BDS

That inveterate campaigner against Israel and Zionism, the Reverend Stephen Sizer, has been participating in the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference which took place in Bethlehem.  (I blogged about it here, but do see, especially if you're American, this disturbing article)

The Rev. Sizer flew back to Britain yesterday, informing his Facebook faithful:

This must have been a joke (unwittingly a Purim joke), for surely the vicar cannot be under the delusion that the Arabs of Mandate Palestine owned and operated their own airline.  (The same cannot, with any high degree of confidence, be said of his followers.)

He surely cannot be among those who take a revisionist view of "Palestinian" history, although, after spotting this poster by Elder of Ziyon on my blog

he had this to say to his followers:

Whatever, the man who (note this, because it's not as generally known as it should be) not long ago declared that the time has come for a One State solution

 has returned from the Conference in fighting form.  He proclaims:

(Incidentally, the David Ruffell quoted above is yet another of Sizer's Facebook friends who makes one call into question the company that the vicar keeps on there; an apparent 9/11 truther, Mr Ruffell has posted such eyebrow-raising things as this:

Time to clean out the Augean Stables, vicar?)

Needless to say, Sizer and the rest of the anti-Christian Zionism brigade are unhappy with British prime minister David Cameron, who during his rousingly pro-Israel speech to the Knesset last week declared:

“I am proud to be pursuing the strongest and deepest possible relationship between our two countries.

From our trade – which has doubled in a decade and is now worth £5 billion a year to the world leading partnerships between our scientists, academics and hi-tech specialists.

Britain and Israel share a commitment to driving the growth of high-tech start-ups. In Britain we’ve introduced huge tax breaks on early stage investment and special visas for entrepreneurs and in just three and a half years we have grown our Tech City in East London from 200 digital companies more than 1300 today.

Israel is the start-up nation – with the second highest density of start-ups outside of Silicon Valley anywhere in the world. As the inspirational President Peres has put it: Israel has gone from oranges to Apple. There are now more than 60 multinational companies with research and development facilities in Israel.

Israel’s technology is protecting British and NATO troops in Afghanistan. It is providing Britain’s National Health Service with one in six of its prescription medicines through Teva and it has produced the world’s first commercially available upright walking technology which enabled a British paraplegic woman to walk the 2012 London Marathon. And together British and Israeli technical expertise can achieve so much more.

From our scientists working on stem cell cures for some of the worst diseases on the planet to our hi-tech specialists who are making a reality of the UK/Israel Tech Hub – the first of its kind in the world I hope this visit can lay the foundation for even more collaboration and even more business between our countries.

And to those who do not share my ambition who want to boycott Israel I have a clear message. Britain opposes boycotts. Whether it’s trade unions campaigning for the exclusion of Israelis or universities trying to stifle academic exchange Israel’s place as a homeland for the Jewish people will never rest on hollow resolutions passed by amateur politicians.

It is founded in the spirit and strength of your people. It is founded in international law. It is founded in the resolve of all of your allies to protect an international system that was forged in our darkest days, to put right historic wrongs. It is founded in the achievements of your economy and your democracy – a country pledged to be fair and equal to all its citizens whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian Arab or Druze.

It is your destiny. Delegitimising the State of Israel is wrong.It’s abhorrent.

And together we will defeat it."

Predictably this has not been received well by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (its logo rather gives its endgame away, of course), while one of Sizer's anti-Christian Zionism friends Jeremy Moodey, CEO of Embrace the Middle East, has dashed off an "Open Letter" to Cameron, in which he says:

"....Finally, there was your blanket condemnation of all forms of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories as ‘delegitimising the State of Israel’ and ‘abhorrent’. These assertions, together with your claim that BDS would deny ‘Israel’s place as a homeland for the Jewish people’ (NB this is not the goal of BDS), are simply a parroting of the Israeli government’s self-serving line on boycott, which is that BDS is just another form of antisemitism...."

"Not the goal of BDS?" Mr Moodey may honestly believe that this is the case, but he is sadly deceived.

As for David Cameron's rousing words, they are, needless to say, very welcome.

However, Cameron in Scots Gaelic means "crooked nose".  There are many who believe the meaning, given its prime ministerial representative's track record, should mean, rather, "crooked mouth" (he tailors his comments to his audience, and is as likely to be as  unctuous towards an Arab gathering tomorrow as he is towards a Jewish one today) or "long nose" (he has a distinct habit of not delivering on his promises) as in Pinnochio.

Cameron is good at a phrase.  But words are cheap.

He is untrustworthy, as I observed in this post which drew attention to his ambivalent attitude to Israel.

And anyone who's inclined to take Cameron at his word should go on over to the blog of the fine pro-Israel British blogger Edgar Davidson for a splendidly candid cautionary view.

The British Foreign Office Identifies Israel As "A Country Of Concern"

The British government's attitude towards Israel is encapsulated in the letter that prime minister David Cameron sent this month to former mayor of New York Ed Koch:

"Let me reassure you that the UK, is and will remain a firm friend of Israel. I share your deep concern about the recent inflammatory statements made by Hamas leaders, including Khaled Mesha’al on 7 December, denying Israel’s right to exist. The UK also utterly and unreservedly condemns the recent call for a third intifada and a suicide campaign by a Hamas official. Incitements to violence and terror are unacceptable. We therefore welcome President Abbas’ public rejection of these statements and acceptance of the State of Israel within 1967 borders.

We firmly believe that the people of Israel have a right to live peacefully and free from terror. But we also believe that the only sustainable way to achieve this is through a negotiated two-state solution. As friends of Israel, it is important we do whatever we can tto reach that ultimate objective: two states, living side by side, in peace. We ask Israel to stop building settlements because they are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and make a two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, harder to achieve. They are, ultimately, not in Israel’s long-term interests. Simply building a fortress without a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians cannot deliver lasting security for Israel.

I do not share your analysis regarding the recent Palestinian UN General Assembly resolution. The UK’s position on this resolution was determined by the guiding principle of ensuring a rapid return to negotiations. Given this, we had asked Palestinian President Abbas not to move a resolution at the UN General Assembly in November. In the period prior to the vote, we engaged intensively to seek a commitment from the Palestinian leadership to return immediately to negotiations without preconditions and that they would not pursue immediate action in UN agencies and the International Criminal Court. In the absence of these assurances, the UK abstained on the vote.

We must now look forward. This year is an important one for peace in the Middle East. The UK will work urgently with the United States, our other international partners and with the Israelis and Palestinians to drive the peace progress forward before the window for a two-state solution closes forever.'

 In a report published last week regarding the situation regarding human rights round the world for the period October to December 2012 inclusive, the British Foreign Office identifies Israel as "a country of concern" (along with 27 other nations including such persistent human rights violators as Iran):

'Israel’s inclusion [observes this account of the report] is likely to cause its incoming government  some concern, in light of its close British ally’s repeated cautions in recent months that Israel’s “illegal” pursuit of settlement expansion risks alienating its international allies....

The update of the climate between October and December 2012 concluded that despite Hamas receiving widespread condemnation from foreign leaders at the time of November’s escalation for instigating the exchange of hostilities, “the violence has resulted in a number of humanitarian needs, including a worsening of the already precarious humanitarian situation in Gaza”....'

This is what, inter alia, the FO report has to say:

'November saw a severe escalation of violence in Gaza and southern and central Israel....

The violence has resulted in a number of humanitarian needs, including a worsening of the already precarious humanitarian situation in Gaza.  Before the recent outbreak of hostilities, 80% of households in Gaza relied on humanitarian assistance and 44% of the population were food insecure.  Fuel, water and sanitation have been serious problems for some time and there are now critical shortages of essential drugs and medical disposables.    A UN Initial Rapid Assessment identified a number of additional emergency needs as a result of the conflict, including health, infrastructure and psycho-social care.  The psychological impact of the violence on both Israeli and Gazan citizens, particularly children, is a particular concern. In addition the European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) assessed that 10,000 individuals living in north and north-east Gaza were displaced during the violence with an estimated 350-700 unable to return due to houses being destroyed or partially destroyed as of 26 November.

On 11 December, International Development Minister, Alan Duncan visited Gaza City to observe the impact of the airstrikes firsthand and announced an additional £1.25m in aid to be channelled through the Red Cross to address the humanitarian needs of people in Gaza affected by the conflict.'

 (Duncan it will be recalled, made the following outrageous statement a couple of years ago:

"The wall [Israel's security barrier] is a land grab. It hasn't just gone along the lines of the proper Israel boundary. It's taken in open land which actually belongs to Palestine.

Israeli settlers can build what they want and then immediately get the infrastructure so that takes the water deliberately away from Palestinians here." )

 Regarding settlements the report observes:

"The UK Government was concerned about developments relating to Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank over the reporting period. On 30 November, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office announced that he would advance the next stage of the planning process for the area of West Bank land known as ‘E1’, thereby building illegally on the last remaining open space of land East of Jerusalem.  Announcements were also made to progress plans for the future construction of 3000 additional illegal settlement units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.  Further settlement plans were advanced in East Jerusalem neighbourhoods including in Ramot Shlomo (17 December) and in Givat Hamatos (19 December).

In reaction to these announcements, the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed the UK’s position that “Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and undermine trust between the parties”. Commenting on the most recent announcements, the Foreign Secretary said that “this decision constitutes a serious provocation and an obstacle to peace.  If implemented, it would make a negotiated two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, very difficult to achieve.”

The construction of a new settlement in ‘E1’ would, if implemented, have a severe impact on freedom of movement, limiting the ability of Palestinians to move easily along the length of the West Bank.  This would have an impact on the economic development, transport links and the ability of the Palestinian Authority to deliver services to its citizens.  Of particular concern is the impact settlement construction in E1 would have on the area’s 2300 Palestinian Bedouins, who would very likely be displaced if the plans were to be implemented."

Below, incidentally, is footage of the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick arguing the case for the settlements  recently (the entire debate, at a forum in London, where Ms Glick experienced hostility that shocked her, can be accessed here).

"With me, you have a Prime Minister Whose Belief In Israel Is Unbreakable ..."

During his recent visit to the United States David Cameron famously made a fool of himself by suggesting to television interviewer David Letterman that Rule Britannia was written by Edward Elgar.  He can be forgiven for not knowing the name of its composer, but he should have been aware that Rule Britannia was an eighteenth-century compostion and that it was one of the staple tunes that accompanied British men of war into action in those long-surrendered days when Britain really did rule the waves, so that it could not possibly have been written by Elgar!

Worse, Cameron did not know what every schoolboy and girl once knew (before traditional history lessons were banished from the British state school curriculum), that Magna Carta means "Great Charter".  An Old Etonian and Oxford First who could not translate that simple Latin?  Incredible!

But that was not the only television interview which Cameron gave, and in this one he was asked why Iran should not be allowed nuclear weapons when Israel has them:

Cameron, who in 2010 controversially described Gaza as a "prison camp" and who infamously resigned in 2011 as patron of the Jewish National Fund (allegedly owing to pressure from anti-Israel activists) avowed staunch support for Israel in a speech delivered last Monday.

He  told United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) bigwigs and fundraisers at a gala dinner in London:

"With me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is unbreakable and whose commitment to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.

 I will always stand by the Jewish people. And it is humbling to be here tonight and to be called a friend.

Here in this room, we have many of the people who are determined to build the strongest possible relationship between Britain and Israel.

The business leaders who have taken our trade to well over $8 billion a year and made Britain the second biggest export market for Israel in the world.

The scientists who are taking forward an ambitious programme of joint research as part of the UK-Israel Life Sciences Council, which includes no less than four Nobel Prize winners.

The leading academics who are helping to forge new partnerships between Manchester and the Weizmann Institute, Oxford and Ben Gurion, Cambridge and Tel Aviv.

The hi-tech specialists who are making a reality of the UK/Israel Tech Hub – the first of its kind in the world....

I am a big admirer of what the UJIA does both here in Britain and in Israel. Let me explain why.

First, the Jewish community in Britain is a role model for successful integration because you understand that as well as being part of a community with a common faith you are also part of a wider community – that of our country....

Yes, you can love this country, take pride in its history, celebrate its Olympics, even cry with its football fans every other year. There is no contradiction between being a proud Jew, a committed Zionist and a loyal British citizen."

He continued:

"In the past, governments allowed a flawed state multiculturalism that said we should encourage different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.

I don’t subscribe to that. And neither do you. I believe we have to end the passive tolerance of segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

Let’s be clear what that means. It means getting preachers of hate out of our country.

It means proscribing organisations that incite terrorism. And it means zero tolerance for any form of antisemitism, especially on our campuses.

And to those in Britain’s universities and trades unions who want to boycott Israel and consign it to an international ghetto, I say not only will this Government never allow you to shut down 60 years worth of vibrant exchange and partnership that does so much to make both our countries stronger but I also say this: we know what you are doing – trying to delegitimise the State of Israel - and we will not have it...."

Regarding Iran, Cameron said:

".... Let’s be clear about the facts. Iran is flouting six United Nations resolutions. The Regime’s claim that its nuclear programme is intended purely for civilian purposes is not remotely credible.

And it has shown its violent agenda by exporting terror and violence to Iraq, to Syria, to Gaza, to Lebanon and to many peace-loving countries across the world.

Iran is not just a threat to Israel. It is a threat to the world. Now there are some who say nothing will work – and that we have to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran.

I say we don’t and we shouldn’t.

But at the same time I also refuse to give in to those who say that the current policy is fatally flawed, and that we have no choice but military action. A negotiated settlement remains within Iran’s grasp.

But until they change course, we have a strategy of ever tougher sanctions. Just today, Britain has secured a further round of new sanctions through the EU Foreign Affairs Council. And these relentless sanctions are having an impact no-one expected a year ago....

The Iranian regime is under unprecedented pressure and faces an acute dilemma. They are leading their people to global isolation and an economic collapse. And they know it.

They know too that there is a simple way to bring sanctions to an end. By giving the international community the confidence we need that they are not and will not develop a nuclear weapon.

I have said to Prime Minister Netanyahu that now is not the time for Israel to resort to military action. Beyond the unpredictable dangers inherent in any conflict, the other reason is this:

At the very moment when the Regime faces unprecedented pressure and the people are on the streets and when Iran’s only real ally in Syria is losing his grip on power a foreign military strike is exactly the chance the Regime would look for to unite his people against a foreign enemy.

We shouldn’t give them that chance. We need the courage to give these sanctions time to work.  But let me also say this. In the long term, if Iran makes the wrong choice, nothing is off the table. A nuclear armed Iran is a threat to Israel. And a threat to the world. And this country will work unwaveringly to prevent that from happening."

Before alluding to the issue of peace between Israel and the Palestinians he observed:

"... I understand how dark things were for Israel when surrounded by enemies on every border. And I understand how Israelis feel when gas masks are handed out to families; and car parks are converted into bomb shelters.

But I passionately believe that what we are seeing through the Arab Spring need not be a new threat to Israel’s security. Democracy and open societies are not the problem – they can be a big part of the solution.

Yes, there are those who believe that in a volatile region only an authoritarian strong man can maintain stability and security. But when brutal dictators suppress their people in the name of stability, the end result is a region is that more dangerous – not less....

But if the Islamists attempt to undermine the stability of other countries or encourage terrorism instead of peace and conflict instead of partnership then we must and will oppose them. And that is why we will not waver from our insistence that Hamas gives up violence and that the rockets from Gaza must stop. Hamas must not be allowed to dictate the way forwards for Israelis and Palestinians...."

And then he said:

"....We can’t advocate democracy and open societies in one breath and then cite the need for stability as an excuse for why the Palestinians shouldn’t renew their democracy too.

It’s now seven years since Palestinians voted for a President and six since parliamentary elections. The Palestinian leadership needs to refresh its mandate and show it has the consent of its people, starting with municipal elections later this month. And it needs to resolve the situation in Gaza and restore to Palestinians a unified, leadership able to deliver peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel.

So Palestinian reconciliation and Palestinian elections are key points on the path to peace – because without consent there can never be credible negotiation.

It will require great strength and courage to take the hard choices needed to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.

.... I know it takes two to negotiate. So let me tell President Abbas something very clearly there is no path to statehood except through talks with Israel.

So if the Palestinian plan is simply posturing with the UN rather than negotiating with Israel, Britain will never support it.

And let me say this to the Palestinians too. Britain will never support anyone who sponsors a football tournament named after a suicide bomber who killed 20 Israelis in a restaurant. We will not tolerate incitement to terrorism.

But in the search for peace both sides have to make hard choices. And just as President Abbas has followed through his commitment to non-violence with real progress on the West Bank so Israel needs a real drive to improve life for ordinary Palestinians.

That means more support for economic development in the West Bank, relaxing restrictions on Gaza, ending the demolition of Palestinian homes, and yes, it means meeting Israel’s obligations under the Roadmap and under international law to halt settlement building.

Britain’s position will not change. Settlements beyond the green line are illegal.

I know how hard the concessions needed for peace can be. But the truth is, time is running out for a two state solution – and with it Israel’s best chance to live in peace with its neighbours...."

Read the entire speech here

David Cameron, Israel's False Friend ...

Despite his professions of solidarity with Israel before a Jewish audience in the prelude to last year's May election (well he would say that, wouldn't he, at a juncture when the keys to Number Ten seemed to be unexpectedly slipping beyond his grasp?) Britain's slimy prime minister David Cameron has accelerated his inexorable descent into the ranks of the Israel bashers which began almost a year ago, in the immediate wake of the Mavi Marmara affair (just look at this lot, some company, eh?).

Keeping company with him - and them - is the University and College Union, whose leftist hijackers have proved their malevolent intent by distancing themselves from that part of the EUMC Working Definition on Antisemitism that relates to Israel, about which I posted last week: http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/05/demonic-on-campus-british-students-and.html

See also  http://engageonline.wordpress.com/ as well as http://www.fairplaycg.org.uk/2011/05/fair-play-reacts-to-the-ucu-motion-on-antisemitism/

I've referred to Cameron in previous posts - this one conveys the flavour: http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2010/07/sick-man-of-europe-david-cameron-talks.html

On these latest measures, which only serve to further demonise and delegitimise Israel, she tells it best (with a masterly consideration of the legality of Israel thrown in), so I don't have to:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6988095/cameron-drinks-the-koolaid.thtml

Update: Talking of "legality", watch this!:

A Right Royal Wrong – the British Foreign Office's Unmajestic Boycott of Israel

The Queen in Abu Dhabi last year

A few days ago it was announced that the Queen and Prince Philip are to pay an official state visit to Ireland some time this year – the first since the Irish Republic’s independence, and the first visit to the Emerald Isle by a ruling British monarch since King George V’s visit 100 years ago. This will mean that there remain only two major countries in the world that Her Majesty has never visited – Greece and, yes, Israel.

Speaking in London at an Anglo-Israel Association dinner just over a year ago, and more recently at a Friends of Israel function, the well-known (non-Jewish) British historian Andrew Roberts reminded his listeners that not once in all the years that she has been on the throne, has Queen Elizabeth II ever been to Israel. The Foreign Office arranges royal visits to foreign countries, and he’d tackled it on the issue, only to be reminded that many countries besides Israel have not had a royal visit.

“That might be true for Burkino Faso and Chad, but the FO has somehow managed to find the time over the years to send the queen on state visits to Libya, Iran, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan and Turkey,” was his cynical reaction.

Mr Roberts, a supporter from the beginning of J. M. Aznar’s splendid Friends of Israel initiative, has said:

“The Jewish contribution to finance, science, the arts, academia, commerce and industry, literature, philanthropy and politics has been astonishing relative to their tiny numbers. Although they make up less than half of one per-cent of the world’s population, between 1901 and 1950 Jews won 14 percent of all the Nobel Prizes awarded for Literature and Science, and between 1951 and 2000 Jews won 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine, 32 percent for Physics, 39 percent for Economics and 29 percent for Science. This, despite so many of their greatest intellects dying in the gas chambers.”

And he went on:

“Civilization owes Judaism a debt it can never repay, and support for the right of a Jewish homeland to exist is the bare minimum we can provide. Yet we tend to treat Israel like a leper on the international scene, merely for defending herself, and threatening her with academic boycotts if she builds a separation wall that has so far reduced suicide bombings by 95 percent over three years. It is a disgrace that no senior member of the Royal Family has ever undertaken an official visit to Israel, as though the country is still in quarantine after more than six decades.

Her Majesty the Queen has been on the throne for 57 years and in that time has undertaken 250 official visits to 129 countries, yet has not yet set foot in Israel. She has visited 14 Arab countries, so it cannot have been that she wasn’t in the region. Although Prince Philip’s mother Princess Alice is buried on the Mount of Olives because of her status as Righteous Among Gentiles, the Foreign Office ordained that his visit to his mother’s grave in 1994 had to be in a private capacity only. Royal visits are one of the ways legitimacy is conferred on nations, and the Coalition Government should end the Foreign Office’s de facto boycott.”

He’s in no doubt that the Foreign Office “has a ban on official royal visits to Israel, which is even more powerful for its being unwritten and unacknowledged. As an act of delegitimization of Israel, this effective boycott is quite as serious as other similar acts, such as the academic boycott, and is the direct fault of the FO Arabists.”

It may be tempting to dismiss this lack of a royal state visit with a shrug and a “So What?” But economic as well as diplomatic benefits would be likely to accrue – for both countries.

As the Minister for Commercial Affairs at the Israeli Embassy in London the executive director of the British Israel Chamber of Commerce pointed out in 2007, when there was speculation that Prince Charles might announce an official visit to Israel: “A visit by Prince Charles would bring with it new people and companies.” And as the Executive Director of the British Israel Chamber of Commerce remarked at that time: “At the heart of any high-profile visit to Israel is the branding of Israel as a normal country where business can flourish.”  But the Foreign Office is evidently far more interested in pursuing commercial relations with the Gulf States, and the behaviour of the present Coalition government reinforces that view.

If, as he told Anglo-Jewry's Community Security Trust recently, David Cameron's support for Israel really is "indestructible," he should ensure that the Foreign Office rectify this wrong, and schedule a royal state visit to Israel.

As the Daily Telegraph's deputy editor, Benedict Brogan, observes in an absolute corker of a pro-Israel op-ed (please read it: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100079268/if-we-truly-are-israel%E2%80%99s-friend-then-now-is-the-time-to-show-it/):

‘So why, then, is Israel so uneasy about Britain? What is it that prompted Benjamin Netanyahu to tell The Daily Telegraph, just days before Mr Cameron spoke, that he is “worried” about this country? Why, when our Prime Minister speaks of his “indestructible” support, did Mr Netanyahu raise the “huge issue” of the decline in backing for Israel in the West and notably in the UK?

The truth is that relations between Jerusalem and London are bad, drifting to worse. British diplomacy has lost interest in Israel as an interlocutor; Israel, in turn, is increasingly of the view that the UK has turned from an indestructible ally into a gullible host for the global campaign to undermine its legitimacy. At a time when the affairs of the Middle East should preoccupy us all, Britain gives the impression of being indifferent to the concerns of a country that is not just the only democracy in the neighbourhood, but also one of our paramount allies in the fight against militant Islamism that Mr Cameron professes to consider a priority.

It is too easy to miss the importance that Britain, and London in particular, has acquired in the insidious campaign that is patiently hacking away at the global foundations of Israel’s existence. Dressed up in modish arguments about human rights, there has been an inexorable rebranding of Israel as an oppressive colonial power. Those who peddle this idea are happy to let the unspoken implication eat its way into the public consciousness: colonial powers eventually have to pack up and leave.

Mr Cameron is not the first premier to laud the reach of the English language and the clout it gives us in a globalised world. What he does not mention is that English is being used to spread the “de legitimisation” argument, and we are providing the megaphone. Together, the BBC and the internet act as an echo chamber for a coalition of religious and political campaign groups and academics of all stripes – some of them Jewish – pumping out a propaganda campaign of explicit and implicit hostility to Israel. No other country has a media with a global reach to match that of the UK, and yet the overwhelming message that it sends around the world is that Israel is the cuckoo in the nest, the obstacle to peace and prosperity in the Arab world....

William Hague, in enough trouble this week for his inexplicable decision to make public his uncertainty about being Foreign Secretary, has made no secret of his frustration with Israel....

It seems that Mr Netanyahu is unlikely to visit the UK this year. And I am told that there are no plans for Mr Cameron to visit Israel. Yet it is more essential than ever that the relationship between the two countries be strengthened, rather than be allowed to weaken. For once, next year in Jerusalem is not good enough. The Prime Minister should find a reason to visit his friends and tell them, face to face, why our links are indestructible.’

William Hague – Israel’s Fairweather Friend – and Little Sir Echo from the Camel Corps: “We Will All Suffer if Israel Persists in this Present Course of Trying to Survive by Force of Arms”

The actress Joan Collins once cruelly said of William Hague that he looks like a foetus. None of us can help our looks, and we can’t all be pin-ups, let alone perennial pin-ups like Joan herself, so I’m going to be much kinder. I’m going to say that in matters of foreign policy the First in PPE from Oxford looks like a dunce. The flat-voiced Yorkshireman who joined Conservative Friends of Israel when still a schoolboy is, as Foreign Secretary, a “friend” to Israel of a very dodgy sort.

Just like the man he calls his boss, in fact. David Cameron, always keen, it appeared, to keep his part-Jewish ancestry firmly under wraps until, desperate for votes in what looked unexpectedly like a very close-run race, he revealed not quite the full extent of it to the Jewish Chronicle just before last May’s election, in what looked suspiciously like a cynical bid for votes, is neither the most trustworthy of Tory politicians nor one who carries empathy for Israel in his gut. Just look at the way he behaved over the Mavi Marmara affair – proclaiming in Turkey (which he’s determined to see admitted to the EU) that Gaza is an "open air prison" and denouncing Israel’s defensive, well-justified attack on the IHH terrorists aboard the flotilla ((http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2010/07/sick-man-of-europe-david-cameron-talks.html).

And now, with Israel – already imperilled by Iran, sliding ever nearer nuclear capability, by Hezbollah, and by Hamas – looking nervously upon the turmoil in Egypt, understandably deeply fearful that the 1979 Peace Treaty is under threat, Hague has the audacity to insist via “a blunt instruction” that Binyamin Netanyahu – the elected leader of a sovereign nation and an ally – “tone down” the rhetoric, as The Times reports in a big story on its front page today. Hague, says that paper, responding “to increasingly militaristic pronouncements by Mr Netanyahu, who has been urging his nation to prepare for ‘any outcome’ and vowing to ‘reinforce the might of the state of Israel’” declared ‘This should not be a time for belligerent language. It’s a time to inject greater urgency into the Middle East peace process.’

Hear Hague here, on Al Beeb (BBC radio 4’s Today programme: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9391000/9391888.stm)

In that same broadcast you will hear Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles (British Ambassador to Israel, 2001-3; pictured) on the necessity for “tough love” towards Israel and the urgency for Israel to accept the peace that's "been on offer" to it since the Peel Commission of 1937 – what, no Arab rejectionism or violence or intransigence, Sir Sherard? – and to abide by the terms of the Balfour Declaration!

Israel (or rather the Jewish Agency) DID accept the Peel Commission report! The Arabs rejected it!!!

For those who don't know,  the report gave the Jews a small portion of land along the coast but the Arabs still said "No".

What an outstanding symbol of the twisting of history.

And that Cowper-Coles, a Foreign Office official and diplomat, doesn't even know that is really shocking! 

(See also Yisrael Medad's response to Sir Sherard's  nonsense:  http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-mandate-period-history-is-essential.html
and Melanie Phillips's demolition job:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6686665/a-monstrous-inversion.thtml#comments)
Does Hague buy into the fiction that if only the “Israel-Palestine” problem were to be settled, there’d be no more strife in the Middle East? Is he so naive, or so beholden to the Arabists in the Foreign Office, that he believes that the responsibility for the current unrest lies with Israel, and that if only Israel were soft and malleable all would be sweetness and light?

Does he have not a clue about the antisemitism in the region or the lethal agenda of militant Islamists? It would appear so – and hearing Little Sir Echo (Coles) reinforces that view.

That superbly realistic Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick has a written a book about her country called Shackled Warrior.

And “shackled warrior” is what Hague and Cameron and Coles evidently wish tiny Israel to be – fighting for its survival against fanatical murderous Islamists  including the Muslim Brotherhood (which of course spawned Hamas) if Egypt falls under their control –  with its sword arm, so to speak, chained behind its back.

From the great – the truly great – Lord Palmerston to Wee Willie Hague.

How is the mighty Foreign Secretaryship fallen.

But Masada shall not – must not –  fall again.

For if it did, the fall of Britain and the rest of Western civilisation would not be long behind.

The public figures who joined Jose Maria Aznar’s Friends of Israel Initiative know that full well.

It seems that Hague and Cameron and Coles do not.

Incidentally, have a look at Melanie Phillips’s post on Hague, if you haven't already:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6684255/with-friends-like-this-who-needs-enemies.tht
and click back to see her superb take on David Cameron's speech regarding multiculturalism.

Requiem for Islamic Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing? David Cameron on Islamic Extremism in that Province of Eurabia called Britain

Remember this infamous statement by Britain’s ambassador to Lebanon, Frances Guy, made in Beirut last year in praise of Londonistan? Here it is again, in all its brazen shame:

“London has traditionally been a place of refuge and tolerance; Marx after all wrote his classic work in the British Library. London was the favourite place of exile of anarchists and revolutionaries. More recently it has been seen as the home of Muslim opposition forces, even leading to the French coining the term Londonistan. This is a heritage that we are proud of, even if it makes us occasional enemies of other governments.”

She must certainly be feeling proud now, then, having been a major player in Whitehall’s forging of close ties with the Muslim Council of Britain (MBC, which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood) when she sees scenes like the ones pictured here, outside the Egyptian Embassy in London, as enemies of the pro-Western Egyptian government vent their hatred of Mubarak’s regime.

There are the fanatical young men (with their grotesquely-garbed womenfolk) screaming that “Islam is the Solution” – the rallying cry of the Muslim Brotherhood itself – and doing the verbal equivalent of holding two fingers up to Britain and the West by decrying democracy, making taunting remarks about our religions and way of life, and telling us that we’ll all be in dhimmitude sooner or later.

In his splendid article “The Days of Doing Deals with Muslim Extremists are Over,” that great British journalist Charles Moore (about whom I’ve blogged before) delivers a few insightful warnings, starting with the coverage of the Egyptian riots by certain left-liberal TV pundits some of whom have been reporting subjectively on "Mubarak's thugs".  Moore also says, inter alia:

”Lenin lived in London and other parts of western Europe before returning to Russia as a revolutionary leader. The Ayatollah Khomeini flew in from Paris. Today, no city is more important in fomenting revolt in the Muslim world than London. The place is awash with exiles, and with British-born extremists. Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of Tunisia’s version of the Muslim Brotherhood, the most significant global Islamist organisation, has been living here for several years. Last week, he returned to his country as the old regime fell. And although the Muslim Brotherhood began life in Egypt, and claims 20 million followers there, its power centres have grown in the West. Much of the propaganda for Hamas, and for one of the Brotherhood’s religious gurus, Yusuf Qaradawi (a big pal of Ken Livingstone), is generated here. Money from charity fund-raisers in Britain is used for its work in Egypt. The Muslim Association of Britain is the Brotherhood’s vehicle in this country. The Muslim Council of Britain, which supposedly represents all Muslims here, contains leaders who are highly sympathetic to the Brotherhood. We think of everything about the Middle East as “abroad”, but many of the truths about the state of the Muslim world are also home truths.”

Read all of Charles Moore’s article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8304545/The-days-of-doing-deals-with-Muslim-extremists-are-over.html

And here’s Moore talking about the Muslim Council of Britain, in a panel discussion last year, along with Conservative peer Baroness Warsi , who's a Muslim, and former MP (Lib Dem) Susan Kramer:

Britain, particularly Londonistan, is the base of some of the most deranged and dangerous Islamists in the world, yet despite the anger and anguish – yes, anguish – this state of affairs arouses in the average man and woman in the street, little is done about it by the chattering classes who comprise the metropolitan elite and the latter's outlets such as the BBC and the Guardian.  People –  decent, everyday people –  who express anxiety are intimidated by the “racism” label – or by the “Islamophobe” tag. In fact, just as outspokenly supporting Israel is increasingly something done only by consenting adults in private, owing to the scorn and rage it's liable to provoke, so too is expressing concern about the Islamism that is in our midst.

A young working-class lad who – calling himself “Tommy Robinson” – founded the English Defence League (EDL) after being outraged by the behaviour of a bunch of Islamic extremists insulting British troops returning from a tour of duty in the Middle East has been demonised by the media and politicians with such routine immediacy and to such an extent that it is impossible for the average member of the public to make a considered assessment of the real nature and motivations of him and his organisation. (Here's Roberta Moore, of the EDL's so-called Jewish Division, who's certainly made up her mind):

Why, even a public figure with so illustrious a name as Winston Churchill (the great wartime prime minister’s grandson, a Conservative MP who died in 2010) was in effect given the cold shoulder by his party when, like a prophet in the wilderness, he warned:

“Britain sends some of the finest and most courageous of their generation to risk their lives and spill their blood chasing the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But who, meanwhile, is guarding our homeland? A recent police report makes clear that, back here in Britain the Deobandi – the very same Islamist sect responsible for spawning the Taliban in Afghanistan – has succeeded in taking over more than 600 of Britain's 1,350 mosques. In addition, it controls 17 of Britain's 26 Islamic seminaries and produces 80 per cent of Britain's home-trained Islamic clerics. It's a funny old world, as Margaret Thatcher once famously remarked. Except that this is no laughing matter. Not for 70 years has there been a more clear or present danger to our internal security, to our free society and to our democracy, than that posed by this vipers' nest in our midst. The Deobandi, an ultra-conservative sect, outlaws music, art, television and football, and also demands the entire concealment of women. According to the Lancashire Council of Mosques, the Deobandi has now taken control of 59 out of 75 mosques in the old Lancashire mill towns of Oldham, Preston, Bury, Blackburn and Burnley. While not all Deobandis are extremist, leading preachers of this sect aim to radicalise the Islamic youth of Britain, and to mobilise them against our society and the freedoms we hold so dear. When will the Government wake up to this mortal threat which – if not swiftly dealt with – threatens to bring strife and bloodshed to the streets of Britain on a scale far exceeding anything seen in the bombings of recent years? Why are Gordon Brown and David Cameron, indeed our entire political class, so deafeningly silent on this, the most pressing matter confronting Britain today? Who will help the moderate majority of Muslims maintain control of their mosques? Who will safeguard the homeland?”

A few days ago, at a security conference in Munich, David Cameron – raising the spectre of Islamic radicalism and terrorism for the first time in his premiership – criticised "state multiculturalism" and called for initiatives to integrate minorities into the fabric of national life. He made the obligatory – some would say deluded – distinction between Islam and Islamism ("We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing") and foreshadowed a get-tough policy on recruiters for militant Islam on university campusese and in prisons, and a withdrawal of government funding of and liaison with advisory bodies that are neither as moderate nor as useful as they appear.

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations."

The relevant part of Mr Cameron's speech can be found here:

Predictably, the BBC has been giving more than their fair share of airtime and webspace to the opinions of people and organisations opposed to Cameron’s message. For instance, it reported the jaundiced reaction of the Muslim Council of Britain (which perhaps recognised itself as one of the bodies whose cosy ties with Whitehall are now in jeopardy). Dr Faisal Hanjra, the MCB’s assistant secretary general, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme:

“We were hoping that with a new government, with a new coalition that there'd be a change in emphasis in terms of counter-terrorism and dealing with the problem at hand....

Again it just seems the Muslim community is very much in the spotlight, being treated as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution”

and Inayat Bunglawala , the MCB’s media secretary, was on several Al Beeb television news bulletins waxing similarly indignant.

An Al Beeb regular, London imam Ajmal Mansoor, pronounced that Cameron is “barking up the wrong tree", since “foreign policy blunders” cause the "extremism and radicalisation in the world".

And so on, and so on.

Al Beeb newsreader Chris Rogers did his best to challenge two Cameron-supporting Muslims who came on, presumably as tokens among the long parade of Muslim critics of the speech, to praise Cameron’s initiative – new Tory peer Lord Tariq Ahmad (to whom Rogers behaved a tad flippantly) and Mohammed Amin, vice-chair of the Conservative Muslim Forum, whose description of the speech as “excellent” and observation that "some Muslims want to bring back the kind of state that existed a thousand years ago where Christians and Jews paid extra special taxes in exchange for the privilege of being exempt from conscription” did not please young Rogers – evidently fully immersed in that left-liberal “mindset” that former Al Beeb presenter Peter Sissons assures us pervades Al Beeb – at all.

For Isi Leibler on the need for moderate Muslim voices to be heard see
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2789

and for Lee Kuan Yew’s thoughts on Muslim integration see
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2011/01/on-muslim-integration