It has made it to the news in certain circles and to blogs: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s response to the most recent terrorist threat to the UK. He has forbidden his ministers to use the word "Muslim" in connection with "terrorist," as if Britain is dealing with any terrorists who are not Muslim. And, in an attempt to achieve a "more consensual" tone, he has banned the term "war on terror" too.
This is all about not offending Muslims in Britain. Hopefully, I imagine, so that they will then become more peace loving.
This is disgusting. And self-defeating. The terrorism that Britain, and the Western world more broadly, is facing is a direct facet of a radical Muslim vision for controlling the world. It is not a coincidence that these terrorists are Muslim; rather, their ideology goes to the very heart of the matter. To deny this and look the other way is nonsense. Mr. Brown is refusing to name the enemy.
Certainly there are Muslims who are not terrorist , and some who are peace loving. It falls to them to be at the forefront of criticism of those radicals who speak for their religion today. And the reality is that a solid percentage of Muslims in Britain have not assimilated into British society and absorbed liberal Western values; a significant number of them cling unapologetically to values that challenge what Britain has stood for. By pretending that this is not the case, and that there is not a serious battle to be drawn, Brown is giving them strength.
Shift the focus to the US, and a similar story emerges . I refer to a piece just written by Daniel Pipes, called "George Bush goes wobbly."
After 9/11, says Pipes, President Bush was still doing the politically correct thing, for example, making "platitudinous, apologetic references to Islam as the ‘religion of peace.’" But over time, Bush really seemed to get it, so that he was able to refer to the caliphate (the Islamic rule over the world envisioned and planned for by radical Muslims), and "Islamic extremism," and "Islamofascism," and even "war with Islamic fascists." Yea, he got it.
But now, as his second term winds down, and the political winds have shifted, George Bush has gone soft. Last week Bush did a rededication of the 50 year old Islamic Center in Washington DC. During his speech, he said, "I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace."
This statement, says Pipes, shows that Bush understands the extent to which his legacy will be defined by Muslim actions. That is, if things go well down the road for a democratic and peaceful Iraq, and a democratic, peaceful Palestinian state is established, he will be praised by historians as wise ahead of his time; otherwise his policies will be roundly criticized. What Pipes points out is that Bush is now missing a critical connection: How well non-radical Muslims succeed depends in part on how forthright the American president is in naming and combating the radical Muslim enemy.
To make matters worse, at this event Bush announced the appointment of a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and instructed him to "listen to and learn from" his Muslim counterparts. The OIC is "a Saudi-sponsored organization promoting the Wahhabi agenda under the trappings of a Muslim-only United Nations." Pipes cites anti-terrorist Steve Emerson, who says that Bush’s initiative in doing this stands "in complete ignorance of the rampant radicalism, pro-terrorist, and anti-American statements routinely found in statements by the OIC and its leaders."
As a final touch, Pipes lets us know that some of Bush’s top female aides (Frances Townsend, Karen Hughes) sat in the audience wearing "makeshift hijabs" (head scarves worn by Muslim women). This patronizing behavior could make one gag.
For the record: Pipes, looking to the future and Bush’s successor, says there is not a single Democrat who is speaking out on the issues of Islamic extremism, and the caliphate. Among Republicans, he singles out Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and (most of all) Fred Thompson as having the courage to do so.
Brigadier-General Yair Golan, Judea and Samaria Division Commander, is retiring from his position and made a speech today. He said that there is little likelihood that Hamas would take over Judea and Samaria as it had Gaza. Why?
"…it’s not that Hamas has given up here, but we have almost unlimited preventive abilities. We operate everywhere.
"Anyone who doubts the IDF’s abilities is invited to spend a night with soldiers in the casbah in Nablus or an ‘early morning’ with them in a refugee camp in Jenin."
He added that: "there is no doubt that Hamas wants to take over. Its ideology here is the same as in Gaza."
OK, then. This must never be forgotten when "bright minds" suggest turning security in Judea and Samaria over to the PA, or having us pull out.
Freed BBC reporter Alan Johnston went to Ramallah today to thank Abbas for all of his efforts to get him released. This was not a spontaneous gesture. Fatah people, greatly irritated at the PR Hamas was getting from the release, petitioned for Johnston to pay a visit.
Israel has released four Jordanian terrorists , serving time in prison here, to Jordan; Olmert was responding to a request by the king — another "good will" gesture. At first it was said that they would be transferred to a prison in Jordan, and it was thought they would complete their terms there. But it turns out that the king has only agreed to keep them in prison for 18 months, after which time he may commute their sentences. There has been considerable controversy over this, with families and associates of murder victims particularly, and justifiably, angry. They were not able to block the transfer in court, however.