Dhimmitude at its best.
Posted by Exile on July 22, 2006
I read this disgraceful article in The Times. Obviously written by a fawning dhimmi leftist, I felt I had to comment it at The Times and here on my own site. I would like to take the author to task here on one or two points.
Excuse me while I clear my throat.
The shocking silence from No 10.
Mary Ann Sieghart
Blair’s tacit support for Israel’s grossly disproportionate actions sends the wrong message.
It is a case of the Blair that didn’t bark. Why hasn’t the Prime Minister publicly condemned the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza? Most British — and many Israeli — citizens are horrified when they see the devastation wreaked by Israeli bombings. There were 80 such raids in the early hours of yesterday alone. By late afternoon, some 327 civilians had died in Lebanon, compared with 34 Israelis. Go figure, as they say.
If this is a proportionate response, I’m a satsuma. Even the most hardline supporters of Israel, who justifiably point to the country’s right to defend itself against attacks from Hezbollah, must by now have come to realise that the “overkill” will have the opposite of its desired effect. For every member of Hezbollah who dies, another ten will be recruited to its cause. The world will be full of sympathy for the benighted residents of Lebanon who had thought, at last, that their country had secured itself a stable, peaceful democratic future. Half a million of them have been forced from their homes because two Israeli soldiers were taken hostage. That hardly looks like justice.
I don’t care about the “disproportionate” losses. Perhaps Ms. Sieghart has forgotten to include all those israelis that have been killed by suicide bombers in the years leading up to this. I do object to the terminology concerning the casualties. Lebanese casualties are “civilians”. Israeli casualties are “israelis”. Are we then to suppose that the israeli casualties are not civilians? Or that all israelis are part of the military?
Again we have this “For every member of Hezbollah who dies, another ten will be recruited” arguement. I don’t agree. I think we may deter just as many when they find out that they will be attacked and killed because of their actions. Many will even abandon the whole business.
And finally, justice has nothing to do with it. Let’s not forget who crossed who’s border and abducted its citizens. That is an act of war. That should never be. The Lebanese had their chance to return them, but failed by default.
Mr Blair, by his silence, seems to be endorsing the US line: allow Israel at least another week to take action against Hezbollah before any calls for a ceasefire are made. He would doubtless argue that, unless he is supportive of the Israelis publicly, he will have no traction with them privately. Yet there are two big problems with this approach.
First, the UK has little traction with Israel anyway. Mr Blair had a frank private conversation with the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, when he visited Britain last month. It doesn’t seem to have done much good.
Secondly, and more importantly, Mr Blair’s silence is sending a strong message to the world’s — and particularly Britain’s — Muslim community. By failing to condemn Israel’s overreaction, he is allying himself with those acts. What more powerful ammunition could there be for the radicalisers of Britain’s young Muslims? “Your Government doesn’t care about you and your fellow believers. You need to take action to defend them in this noble cause.”
I think Tony Blair and George W. Bush are realists. They know what is going on and justify it as being appropriate. Lebanon has done nothing to rid itself of Hezbollah. The Un has done nothing either. Israel is defending itself against terrorists on its doorstep. They have been there for years and have frequently attacked a peaceful Israel. What would they expect a sovereign land to do? And by the author’s own admission, quote: “the UK has little traction with Israel anyway”, and that conversation between Blair and Olmert ” doesn’t seem to have done much good.”, then I would assume that, having been tried, the debate is now closed.
My greatest indignation comes at the final part of this extract of Ms. Sieghart’s article. This is tantamount to inviting a Muslim riot in Britain and giving them the justification for so doing. It is a blatant act of Dhimmitude and at the very least, cowardly. I realise a lot has changed since I left, but to assume that Great Britain would tailor it’s foreign policy to suit the needs of a minority of the population based solely on that minority’s religion is ridiculous. The implication that the Hezbollah, or its “cause”, is in any way noble, is equally outrageous.
Follow the link at the top of this page to read the whole preposterous article, and read the comments too. It gives insight as to how people are reacting to both the article and the war in Lebanon.
Hopefully Ms. Sieghart has booked passage to Lebanon or Iran.
I’m sure her burkha will fit in better there than in Great Britain.