Alan Goodacre’s letter to the Jewish Chronicle updates us on the BNP’s attitude to Jews. The BNP no longer denies the Holocaust and:
We hope that our future behaviour may in time bring you to understand that our repudiation of antisemitism is genuine. We are the only party in Britain that is truly serious about fighting the Islamofascist threat.
The BNP is led today by Nick Griffin. And here’s a snippet from Nick Griffin’s bio at the BBC.
In 1980, Griffin launched Nationalism Today with the help of Joe Pearce, editor of Bulldog. They formulated the idea that a “third way” was needed to transcend the evils of both capitalism and communism.
Under Griffin’s control, the National Front supported Libya’s Colonel Gadaffi and Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini. Griffin visited Tripoli in 1988 at Gadaffi’s expense to look for funding from the Libyan regime.
Ah… The BNP.
My feelings on this can be summed up in a short phrase, which happens to be the subtitle of an article: Beware of Islamophobes bearing gifts — FANIA OZ-SALZBERGER
[...] new pro-Israel voices base a love of Jews upon the hatred of Muslims. Last September the European Coalition for Israel convened in Brussels, its most prominent speakers lamenting the loss of European Jewry alongside the rise of European Islam. The tone was belligerent, the linkage crude: “The enemies of Israel are also a threat to Europe,” delegates were told. And also: “In only two generations, most parts of Europe will be under Islamic law.” Other self-declared friends grimly speak of Londonistan and augur the coming of the European Caliphate. Such statements may reflect genuine concern, but are disconcerting when made on European soil.
Unlike the late Oriana Fallaci, whose commitment to the Jews stemmed from her heroic anti-Fascist youth, and whose harsh critique of Islam came from an enraged liberal soul, many of these new friends are Muslim-bashers first and Israel-backers second. Their blanket condemnation of Muslim communities on their continent rings eerily familiar. Their sweeping verdict against a whole civilization has that strange déjà vu feel. And their rather sudden nostalgia for Europe’s lost Jews is, I’m sorry to say, far too late and somewhat suspect. As the Mishna wisely warns, “Any love that depends upon some thing, when that thing is no more, the love is no more.”
[...] I, for one Israeli, would be grateful to my newfound buddies if their sympathy for me did not rely on the trashing of another religion. Unlike them, I’m touched by the sight of young Muslim women in European university campuses. They remind my of my own grandmother, a student in Prague who had to flee after the Nazi rise to power, and of all the other young and hopeful Jews whose dreams and lives were shattered by the European culture they so admired. I will therefore not solicit support based on unqualified dislike of other human groups, least of all on the continent that kicked out my grandparents.
[...] Jewish people have a long memory, whereas the European Union often seems short of the asset. It may be our role to remind today’s Europeans of the medieval past, the great centuries when Islam was young, tolerant to minorities and philosophically minded. There would be no Maimonides, no glorious Sephardi Jewish tradition, without the Arab world. Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be threatening the existence of Israel today, but no Muslim power has ever dealt the Jews such calamities as brought upon them by Europe.
The point about the BNP is a reasonable one, particularly when its rank and file still contains so many obvious knuckledraggers. But the columnist seems completely blind to what is happening in Europe, even to the point of making the oft-repeated and utterly ridiculous claim that Muslims are in some way ‘the new Jews’ in terms of persecution. What utter nonsense. Jews never attempted to impose their own religious laws on their host nations, Jews never indulged in acts of terrorism against those host nations. If there is some genuine rising tide of intense anti-Muslim feeling in Europe it is due to actions, not xenophobia. And yet despite these dire predictions, the torch waving mobs ready to destroy Muslim business and mosques in a Kristallnacht-style orgy of destruction just keep mysteriously failing to appear, dont they…
And as to the fact that people are making claims about ‘Londonistan’ and the like on European soil – she may well find it disconcerting, but its all too obvious that she is the one who finding it so for all the very wrongest reasons…
By: DSD on March 14, 2007
at 3:58 pm
DSD,
But they were accused. I quoted Maleiha Malik in this post: Londonistan, which begins with a nice piece of misdirection before fessing up: “All this happened a hundred years ago to Jewish migrants seeking asylum in Britain. The political movements with which they were closely associated were anarchism and later Bolshevism.”
One example: The robbery plans of an ‘anarchist group’ were foiled, leading to the 1911 Siege of Sidney Street. Anarchist members included: Jacob Fogel (or Jan Sprohe), William Sokolow (or Joseph), Fritz Svaars, Mouremtzoff (or George Gardstein), Nina Vassilleva (Gardstein’s mistress), Luba Milstein (Svaars’ mistress), Jacob Peters, Max Smoller (or Joseph Levi), and [Peter] Piaktow.
Latvian, with many Jewish sounding names. And, of course, ‘Anarchy’ was supposed to be a Jewish invention. So would anybody in 1911 have cared whether or not they were actually Jewish? Immigration was a hot topic at the time:
Yes, I know, they weren’t accused of being Jews. They were accused of being ‘Anarchists’ and criminals planning a robbery. Two hundred policemen were involved in the seige, and the Scots Guard were called out. In the end, two ‘anarchists’ died and some were put on trial, but acquitted. (A “shambles for the prosecution.”)
More from Maleiha Malik:
Well, I’ve repeated enough of that post here. Please read the bit on Churchill at the end.
If you can’t see the parallels with what’s happening today then… What can I do?
By: misterlister on March 15, 2007
at 3:02 pm
Simple. As I’ve pointed out, the torch-wielding mobs simply havent materialised. The worst that Europe’s Muslims are suffering is people maybe looking at fully covered women in a bit of a funny way.
And the Jews of that era didnt proclaim en masse that their religion requires them to conquer the rest of the world to establish a worldwide Jewish regime. Neither did they commit literally thousands of violent atrocities all around the world in support of this goal.
The Jews were made the scapegoats for many of Europe’s ills – just as they are being now in fact. How many times has and is it being said (usually by the Left who are quickest to accuse those of us who support Israel as fascists, ironically enough) that if only the Israeli-palestinian problem would ‘go away’, everything would somehow be better?
It is a strawman of epic proportions to pretend that just because Jews were unfairly accused of doing certain things 80-100 years ago that Muslims cant *possibly* be guilty of doing those things (and worse) now in 2007.
By: DSD on March 15, 2007
at 5:26 pm
And the same is true of Muslims. Didn’t stop the Jews being accused of wanting world domination. (Some of them, of course. I have to acknowledge Churchill’s artful rhetoric — which I would rather call a dodge. And even that same dodge is echoed today when talking about moderate Muslims).
It is a strawman to represent my argument in such a way.
My argument is that hatred is being stirred up against a group of people in the same way as it has been stirred up before. The aim being to quiet criticism of an illegal war and build up support for another.
By: misterlister on March 15, 2007
at 5:51 pm
Since both the above commentators were quoting history and both are obviously more versed in it than the poor author, who feels that his “feelings” and sensibilities are enough to issue a blanket slur upon the Characters of both Mr Griffin and the BNP at large. I think perhaps next time the publication should make the effort to engage people who are more knowlegeable about political history before hey go to print.
It is very telling that quote of Churchill’s as to just how many “respectable” people engaged in anti Semitism in the past. And of course hearing the author’s self righteous excuses for denigrating Mr Griffin et al, I am reminded Of the most famous story underlying the perils of all such affectations. That would be 2000 years ago in Jerusalem when the most self righteous Jews decided to trap Jesus, who was himself the Son of a Jewish woman and also unbeknownst to the Jews the son of the Most High the Eternal as the Jews referred to God. The Sanhedrin and Pharisees dragged before him a woman ” caught in the very act of adultery” to see if he would enforce the Law against such evil and condemn the woman to be stoned or would he preach forgiveness and break the law. It was a trap, you see, and these noble personages were just using the woman, who after all was very unimportant (to them) in the scheme of things, as bait. Jesus, as some of you may remember, said simply that let the one of you here without sin cast the first stone and just looked at each man in the crowd until each, reminded of his own violations of the law was in each of there inner beings, self convicted of their own sin and turned away. “Are there none left to condemn thee?” he asked, “well then I do not condemn thee either. Go and sin no more.”
Mr. Griffin’s and others “sins” as you can see if you google up some of his former writings were that as a youth and a young man , he and they believed the propoganda of their parents generation as to the false charges of machination and manipulation by the Jews, This was hardly uncommon even in America. Until the film “Exodus” came out us WASP baby boomers had never before heard the Jews side of the story and the only thing we knew about them was that they rejected Jesus and profaned the sabbath (Sunday to us). As a matter of fact most Christians in America including myself, only support the nation of Israel Because we believe that The Lord High God ordained it, certainly not because we believe that Jews are some super good deserving beings better than all the rest of Humanity. I would ask this one question of the Author Does that make us anti Semites in his view?
Unless the author is sinless like Jesus none of Mr Griffins actions including his previous views which he honestly held and forthrightly stated are any excuse for her condemnation of him now. Perhaps he would be good enough to meet him and apologize. –JJB
By: John B on October 27, 2007
at 6:08 pm
So there’s a principle of “Judge not lest ye be judged”.
Which means we shouldn’t criticise Nick Griffin unless we are pure and sinless.
And yet I’m being criticised.
I assume my critic is pure and sinless. Or a hypocrite.
By: misterlister on November 5, 2007
at 10:59 am