In my previous article, I stated that I would focus on the discriminatory aspect of David Cameron’s statements made in his New Year’s messages around terrorism, its politically expedient focus on ideology (extremism), and the “conditions” which foster extremism, namely orthodox Islamic beliefs and practices.
Through the smokescreen of “Islamist extremism”, “integration”, and “isolated communities”, we have been witness to relentless, structural (state-level) culturalist attacks on Islamic beliefs/practices – from sex separation, Shari’ah arbitration and the Islamic conception of roles of men and women, to loyalty to other Muslims through the concept of the Ummah and Caliphate. All of this and more is used to concoct the Machiavellian “fifth column” menace.
There is one particular neoconservative blind spot which is absent not only from Cameron’s speeches, but also the underpinning policy which has been carefully carved by his neocon guides at the Henry Jackson Society and Quilliam Foundation: the counter-extremism strategy. It is the omission of a particular group which not only accentuates the discriminatory aspect of Cameron’s regressive rhetoric, but points to a contributory political hand being played in the carving up the Muslim minority, its beliefs, and practices.
Cameron and his neocon advisors and policymakers remain speech-paralytic in addressing the religious beliefs and practices of sections of the Jewish minority, which would easily satisfy Cameron’s “path to terrorism” thesis.
Cameron in his statements highlighted that he will be “coming down hard” on those who “create the conditions” for extremism. He demanded that all must “sign up” to “our values”. This has seen Islamic practices, places of worship and learning placed in the colonialist crosshairs. The question is, will he be launching his steroid-jacked, muscular liberalism against the Jewish minority?
Rule of Law?
One detailed report cites a well-known Jewish blogger who explains the attitudes in London’s orthodox Jewish community:
“Since the Torah is the truth… our path must be of primrose, and since our path is indeed of primrose it proves the supremacy of a Torah way of life. Hence it follows that to criticise some of the fundamentals which underlie our way of life is to challenge the Torah itself.”
Is this prevalent attitude not a subversion of the rule of law? Is Cameron going to attack the “Torah way of life” for the practices which emanate from the “Torah itself” and which constitute an infraction of “our values”?
The report goes onto further explain social attitudes and mores:
“Modesty is paramount to the Haredi, and the mingling of the sexes is strictly regulated. Unmarried boys and girls will have little contact with the opposite sex outside their families. At concerts and wedding parties men and women will always be separated. A Haredi man will avoid making eye-contact with any woman other than his wife, and would never shake hands.”
Cameron has designated sex separation in the context of Muslims as extremist, whilst shaking hands with women was curated as a sign of “extremism” during the Trojan Hoax fiasco. In fact, during the conversations between affected teachers and my sources at that time, I was informed that a female Ofsted inspector would deliberately thrust her hand before practicing Muslim male teachers to determine their “radicalisation”. The same inspector had previously been politely declined a hand-shake by other Muslim teachers at another school, indicating that this was being used to determine the level of practice of Islam amongst Muslim teachers.
On sex education the report continues:
“For example, the law is that you have to provide sex education. But parents can choose to opt out. 100 per cent of our parents opt out. Sex education is something we deal with on our own terms through the Jewish curriculum, based on very strong family values.’”
Again, one of the secular liberal litanies repeated in reports around Muslims and schools was that sex education had been “changed”, ironically conforming to the local demographic sensibilities. Are these Jewish attitudes around sex education also fermenting “extremism”?
Last June, parents were threatened that their children would not be allowed to learn at a Jewish school if the mother contravened Jewish modesty laws and drove pupils to school. The rule was based on a decree by a Rabbi (Yissachar Dov Rokeach) who is based in the Zionist entity. Will white-liberator Cameron be planning on saving these “Jewish girls” like he plans to save “Muslim girls”?
In September, a London Haredi school informed parents that they would expel any child whose parents gave them unfiltered access to the internet. They asserted that it was strictly forbidden “to be exposed to non-Jewish films”, which included “BBC iPlayer”. Jewish children aged three and four are reported to be commonly taught that non-Jews (which includes the practising Christian Cameron) are bad and evil, and these children are conspiratorially indoctrinated that the outside world hates Jews, and that non-Jews have no souls.
A “seething hate” of Western values Mr Cameron? Cameron was quite keen to deal with “ideas” which suggest that “Jews exercise malevolent power”, presumably intercepting and shutting down through semantic equivocation with Israel, queries about who exactly is influencing decision-making. Will Cameron be dealing with the type of conspiracies which suggests that the outside world is bad and evil and that the world hates Jews? And will he raise these in a major speech, perhaps in another country?
“Anglo-Jewish Terrorism” and Dual Loyalties
If we accept the baseless thesis which Cameron has outlined, that conditions for extremism give rise to extremism and thus terrorism, then the massacres by the terrorist occupying Zionist state must also be brought into the counter-extremism context. Whilst the public moves on from the brutal, disproportionate force used against the Palestinian civilian populace, where IDF terrorists are explicitly given instructions to kill “whoever you see”, where children on a beach are blown to bits, and where experimental munitions are used to shred little bodies apart, the extreme Zionist psychosis which drives this is very much alive in Britain. Teenage British Zionist Jews who may be potentially “radicalised” at schools which promote Zionism, are joining a terrorist occupying army of a state which has a Defence Minister who cites Nagasaki and Hiroshima as model for dealing with Iran.
With the rise of the extremist settler movement firmly sprouting forth from sections of the Jewish orthodoxy, will we see Cameron “coming down hard” on the “incubators of extremism” that are Synagogues and Yeshivas as he and his Zionist/neoconservative gang intend to do with the Muslim minority? We have already seen the influence of Rabbis based in the Zionist state through the case of the ban on Jewish women driving in Stamford Hill. Yeshivas in the Zionist entity have hate preachers who call for the torching of churches and chant “death to Arabs” addressing them. Soon after the Paris attacks, Rabbi Dov Lior of occupied West Bank, who has called for “cleansing” Israel of Palestinians, stated,
“The wicked ones in blood-soaked Europe deserve it for what they did to our people 70 years ago”.
What is the risk of similar activities and “poisonous narratives” influencing “vulnerable individuals” in Yeshivas and Synagogues here in Britain? Is Cameron going to “take on the underlying, poisonous narrative of grievance and resentment”, where the Holocaust is used to celebrate terrorist attacks against Europe?
The “Anglo-Jewish” terrorism connection was exposed recently by Haaretz. It noted that in terrorism cases like the burning of an eighteen-month old baby, Ali Dawabsheh, by Jewish “settlers”,
“[a] disproportionate number of those taken into custody in the latest crackdown on Jewish extremism Israel, as well as those cheering them on, are children from English-speaking countries or immigrants who hold dual citizenships.”
One Zionist extremist occupier, Daniel Pinner, emigrated from Britain. He was detained in Israel when he was caught dancing alongside young children and other participants holding knives and military-grade guns, celebrating the killing of the infant. One psychopath sickeningly slashed a photo of the dead Dawabsheh baby.
Given that Pinner was celebrating what even the racist, settlement-expansion-supporting Benjamin Netanyahu called a terrorist attack, will Cameron be seeking him out for glorifying terrorism overseas using the broad sweeping terrorism laws? Perhaps he will drone strike him like other Muslim British citizens in foreign countries and then focus on tackling the “breeding grounds” of terrorism in the “enclaves” of Britain. Using the “exile” powers established through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (s.2), will Theresa May be applying to the courts for a “temporary exclusion order” to ban Pinner from entering the UK?
Concluding Remarks – Loyalty?
In the context of religious rights, the securitisation of religious beliefs and practices of any faith is contemptible. However, the fact remains that the extremism policy in accordance with the rule of law is meant to apply to all. Selective application would be tantamount to discrimination. As countless human rights text reinforce, no amount of “national security” concerns and semantic gymnastics through contrived labels (Islamist, extremist, fundamentalist, zealot, fanatic, conservative – delete as appropriate) can permit profiling based on protected characteristics.
David Cameron, though, most certainly will continue to perpetuate Muslim minority discrimination. He will remain silent and dismiss as frivolous the case of Jewish “extremism” and the glorification of Zionist terrorism. In fact, the government will actively engage with those from the Jewish community who live and advocate the “conditions” which give rise to “extremism”.
According to a report by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, strictly Orthodox Jews are expected “to constitute a majority of the British Jewish population before the 21st century is over.” The “extremist conditions” are set to grow, it seems. Yet, whilst instituting a policy where mainstream Muslims are shunned in favour of “Cameronian Muslims” who jettison entire tracts of their faith and align with pro-Israeli/neoconservative organisations and individuals globally, Cameron and fellow neocon Boris Johnson have forged strong links with the Jewish Community Council, the body representing orthodox Jewish groups.
Why is there such a brazen blind spot with one minority and an incessant cold-war against another? Are there greater interests at stake, and if so who is shaping and influencing the decisions which skew these interests? These are critical questions which have profound implications for the future of Britain. Who constitutes a threat to Britain and her interests? Cameron bellowed in his New Year’s message that “loyalty” was one of the values which one had to “sign-up to” if one walks the streets of Britain. Who’s interests is Cameron and his encircling neoconservative, pro-Israeli syndicate serving? Now these are questions worth pondering over.