'On Fences and Hypocrisy' by Jephtah D. Lorch

 When it comes to double standards, Israel's European critics are not to be outdone.

For example, Javier Solana - formerly Spanish Foreign Minister and later EU foreign policy chief - was a vocal critic of Israel's anti-terror fence, built following the Second Intifada that claimed the lives of over 1,100 Israelis.

At the same time, however, Solana approached the European Union asking for (and receiving) tens of millions of Euros to build (and later strengthen) the Spanish fences that currently demarcate the borders of Ceuta and Melilla - two Spanish enclaves on the northern coast of Morocco.

Both territories - relics of the bygone era of European colonialism - have a total landmass of less than 12 square miles, yet they continue to consume European taxpayers' money for the construction and maintenance of their anti-immigrant fences.

Ask yourself: who poses the greater threat - Palestinian suicide bombers or North African jobseekers?

If the EU sees Israel's security fence as unacceptable, then surely it must see the expenditure of millions of Euros on Spain's own Apartheid Wall as even more unacceptable... Right?

Why Israel has such a hard time getting a fair hearing in Brussels. Dan Hannan

EU NEO COLONIALISM

In a fascinating article on the Public Service Europe Website, Jason Edlestein, Communications Director at NGO Monitor exposes how the EU is abusing Israeli democracy for its own ends. He writes that:


"Through non-governmental organisations, the EU immorally manipulates the public debate and policy considerations regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict - claims research group"

Click here to read the full article

More on How the EU fuels Neo-Nazism

In our last blog we talked about how the EU is directly funding a neo-Nazi youth movement.

And his latest blog post, UKIP's Michael Heaver (former Chairman of the youth wing) identifies another way in  which the EU has been helping the far right cause. This is of obvious concern to the Jewish community and other ethnic minority groups.

Michael argues that Greece is a prime example of where failing EU policies have led the electorate to turn to extremist political parties in order- ironically-  to salvage their democracy.

Click here for the blog post.

EU Funding Neo-Nazis

In recent months, the EU has not only been found to be funding extremist Islamic organisations but also worrying groups of quite a different kind.

The Union of Lithuanian Nationalist Youth (ULNY), a Lithuanian neo-Nazi youth group has been adopted onto a council which receives European Union funding.

Not only will the group benefit from EU funding by being part of the Lithuanian Council of Youth Organisations but it will also benefit from respect and credibility of being part of a grouping which is officially recognised and sponsered by the EU.

Click here to read more in the Jewish Chronicle.

Good Luck to UKIP Candidates Today

Friends of Israel in UKIP wishes the very best of luck to all candidates standing in today's local elections.

We anticipate an excellent result for UKIP building on previous progress and continuing the current trend of increasing support for the Party.

Why I'm Not Surprised by Baroness Ashton's Sick Comparison of the Toulouse Murders to "What is Happening in Gaza"

Baroness Ashton’s sick comparison of the racially motivated murders at a Jewish school in Toulouse to “what is happening in Gaza" should not be met with too much surprise. Sadly, her comments are a reflection of the deep-rooted, institutional hatred of Israel that subsists in the EU.

Just yesterday, Press Officer for Friends of Israel in UKIP, Jacob Campbell wrote for The Commentator to expose a new EU Report which belittles the fate of victims of Palestinian atrocities last year, including the Fogel Family.

Perhaps blinded by the need to appeal to the growing Muslim population of Europe, or the chance to get more favourable oil contracts from other Middle Eastern countries, the EU is incapable of playing a fair and neutral role in the Middle East. 

Any political party aiming to seriously represent British values would recognise that Britain does not want to be represented in these matters by the likes of Baroness Ashton. A British PM of real integrity would at the very least stand with Israel and call on Baroness Ashton to resign.

But David Cameron long ago abandoned any real support for the State of Israel and her security interests.  He refers to Gaza as a prison camp and critises Israel for the actions taken by the Israeli Defence Forces during the Flotilla Raid.


By contrast, in light of Baroness Ashton’s remarks, Nigel Farage MEP appears prophetic in having told the Jewish chronicle back in 2009, “There is within the European institutions a very strong anti-Israel bias…I would almost say — and I am bit nervous of saying this — there’s almost a new trendy form of antisemitism creeping in…”

Friends of Israel in UKIP will continue to fight to expose the severe threat to the State of Israel, and consequently Western interests, posed by the European Union.

The Real Bigots Are Those Who Label UKIP “Far Right”

As a young Jewish man, and a passionate believer in the virtues of a liberal, democratic and pluralistic society, I am abhorred by the claims made by Mathew Goodwin in the course of his defence of his decision to include UKIP members as a control group in his study on attitudes to violence and the far right. 

First, Goodwin defends his inclusion of UKIP by explaining that the authors of the report wanted a control group to the right of Cameron’s conservatives. Ed West, writing for the Telegraph, has already made the suggestion that surely a better control group would have been just an ordinary cross-section of British society. Nevertheless, it is my own submission that if Goodwin had wanted a control group “right of Cameron’s Conservatives”, I see no reason why he shouldn’t have just interviewed ordinary members of the Conservative party most of whom are much more right wing than Cameron who is frequently criticized by Tories as being a moderate, centrist, “heir to Blair” figure. 

Nevertheless, Goodwin makes the fair point that he never claimed UKIP is a party associated with violence and he points out that the assertion of UKIP’s leadership that it is opposed to extremism and violence is “backed up by our own data”. 

So how does Goodwin justify his suggestion that UKIP shares more with the far right than it admits? Given by his own admission UKIP members do not lust after violence, he does so by claiming that the party has “considerable policy overlaps with the extreme right”. Here is where Goodwin’s argument becomes disingenuous, warped and extremely offensive to members of UKIP such as myself who are members of minority communities.

The BNP are self-evidently right wing nutters: the leadership meets the KKK, have denied the holocaust and, until stopped by the courts, left membership of the party only to indigenous white Brits. Many of the BNP’s supporters are neo-Nazi skinheads and this is all a million miles away from UKIP. 

Yet Goodwin argues that UKIP’s sensible policy on immigration which is designed to promote liberal values overlaps with the BNP’s white supremacist policies. 

Goodwin quotes the UKIP policy of ending uncontrolled immigration as being overlapping with the extreme right. But surely wanting controlled immigration is not an unusual view at all after the unprecedentedhigh levels of immigration seen under New Labour? I myself, for example, believe immigration should be controlled with regards to the brain drain which many academics claim has led to the NHS stealing doctors and nurses from poor African countries where they were trained. Furthermore, Goodwin also claims that there is overlap in terms of the policy of wanting the “expulsion of illegal immigrants”. I cannot possibly see how this view is extreme.   

Yet there is one policy which Goodwin claims does not just overlap with the far right but is in fact a “radical right pitch to voters” and that is: ending multiculturalism. Here we spot the fundamental flaw in Goodwin’s paper and that is that “far right” is never properly defined. Being far right is innately a bad thing as far as Goodwin is concerned. This is evident in his description as UKIP as being “alongside the more toxic extreme right” implying that there is a less toxic, but albeit toxic category UKIP falls into. 

While I too would of course agree that far right politics is detestable, my own definition of “fair right” must be different, and in my view, more sensible, and I can demonstrate this in my support for UKIP’s allegedly extreme right policy on multiculturalism. Incidentally, I would argue that the Prime Minister agrees with UKIP on this given that he has said state multiculturalism has failed. 

UKIP is a libertarian party and British classical liberalism emphasises not trying to promote diversity but rather favours a policy of merely tolerating minority groups. That we don’t believe in throwing money at quangos or encouraging positive discrimination in order to achieve the successful integration of minority groups into British society is all that this policy is about. UKIP has long ago scrapped a silly French-style ban the burqa policy.

Indeed, UKIP is a liberal nationalist party in the British libertarian tradition. It is about preserving a nation-state which is tolerant towards minority groups and will not allow society to fragment. After all, a lack of social cohesion hurts minority groups the most. The narrative Goodwin paints is a clear smear against UKIP and it does not stand up to scrutiny. The real victims of this affair will be my Asian, black, and other friends in UKIP who are from minority backgrounds, and who will be looked down upon because others have deeply misunderstood their political beliefs. 

Douglas Murray Highlights Dangers of Nuclear Iran in the Cambridge Union

Ayatollah: "Kill all Jews and Annihilate Israel"

In the upcoming meeting between Obama and Cameron, there will only be one real talking point: Iran.


The Ayatollah's strategy specialist Alireza Forghani has outlined the "religious" and "jurisprudential" case for destroying major Israeli settlements in a dossier currently published on a number of state websites.

The dossier states that Iran is capable of destroying Israel in just 9 minutes using existing missile technology. 

Iran remains a dominant force in the axis of evil. With their religious views very much comparable to Al Queda suicide bombers, some fear Iranian leaders would embrace even a nuclear retaliation by the West.

On the 75th Anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street Fascism is Thriving in Today's Britain

Today marks 75 years since the infamous battle of Cable Street when thousands of East End residents rallied against fascist leader Oswald Mosley and 5,000 of his uniformed followers. The event was testament to the admirable spirit of East End Londoners.

Sadly, however, our society is still not free from fascism. Many, including former  cabinet minister John Denham,  have drawn comparisons between the 1936 Mosley rally and the English Defence League March earlier this year in a Muslim area barely a stone’s throw from Cable Street.

However, while many members of the English Defence League do come across as little more than fascist thugs with their Hitler salutes and skin heads, there is a more dangerous fascist threat.

Fascism is an apt label for the ideology subscribed to by many thousands of Islamic extremists living in Britain today who hold contempt for liberty and democracy, hate the Jewish people and do not respect the rights of women. That this ideology is alive and well is proved all the time by the organisation Student Rights who point out instances of Islamic extremists being invited onto university campuses. These individuals are commonly addressing lecture theatres in leading academic institutions all over our country, attempting to warp vulnerable young minds.


This fascist threat comes in a different form to that experienced 75 years ago.Where once it was men in black shirts, riding horses, showing a physical presence on the streets of London. Now fascism thrives in an academic environment where not to accept its presence would be “closed minded”.  But as we have tragically found out, British universities are quickly becomming the breeding grounds for potential one day terrorists.

Mirroring modern guerrilla warfare , fascists have taken to covert means to spread and strengthen their ideology, and only organisations like Student Rights are standing up to fight today’s fascist threat.

For more information about Student Rights go to http://www.studentrights.org.uk/

Human Rights Lunacy: Police Wrong to Detain Dangerous Sheikh... Because They Didn't Explain The Reasons in Arabic!

Sheikh Raed Salah has won compensation for being wrongly detained in Britain due to procedural impropriety on behalf of the law enforcement services.

Theresa May wished to detain the pro-Palestian activist who had been making a 10 day visit. The Home Secretary feared he might pose a danger to the peace because of his radical views including his conspiracy theory that Jews were warned to leave the twin towers before the 9/11 attacks while thousands of Muslims working there perished.

The issues at the heart of the legal case, which considered the legality of the attempted detainment of Raed Salah, were: (1) whether it was right to attempt to deport Raed Salah given he intended to return home anyway; (2)whether Raed Salah could be dealt with under the guidelines for dangerous foriegn national prisoners; and finally, (3) whether the reasons given to Raed Salah for his deportation adequately explained to him.

This third argument was very important to  the judge, Hon. Mr Justice Nicol , who felt that it was wrong of the police not to have immediately informed Raed Salah of the reasons in his native tongue, Arabic. By not doing so the judge felt that Sheikh Salah's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. Justice Nicol said there "had not been a prompt explanation of the reasons for his detention in a language which he could understand".

Tony Blair the Neocon

The newspapers are reporting today that Tony Blair is no longer respected by Palestinian groups in his role as a Middle East Peace Envoy. The PLO have drawn up a motion to declare Blair a persona non grata because of his perceived 'pro-Israel' bias. Mr Blair will not be helped in defending this accusation of bias by stories that have been coming out over recent weeks about Blair using his position to aid Israeli companies, and an alleged affair with an Israeli tycoon.

One group you wouldn't expect Blair to receive much sympathy from are those on the right of the political spectrum. To name a few of their grievances, British conservatives and small 'c' liberals,  see Blair as a socialist who pretended to be on the side of business; a corrupt prime minister whose Chancellor spent excessively and a man hell bent on a policy of multi-culturalism which made social cohesion a thing of the past in Britain.

However, when it comes to foreign affairs Blair has a pretty right wing track record. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq became all about ensuring democracy and liberalism in very religious Islamic societies. This approach was what Blair called "liberal interventionism" but it is what Americans call "neoconservative". It was here that Blair and Bush were almost always on the same page.

Ivring Kristol famously declared that "A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality". Blair's rhetoric on the problem the world faces from radical Islam is very strong and would indicate that he has indeed been mugged. In his book My Journey, Blair writes about the dangerous level of sympathy Islamic terrorists receive from Muslims of all levels of faith and observance- not just radicals.

The Palestinians plan to oust Blair from his role and unsurprisingly right wingers don't seem to be rushing to his defence. But if Blair does go, and a new envoy comes along who is more acceptable to the Palestinians, conservatives might actually miss him for once.

Socialist Admits the Left are too Cosy with Anti-Semites in Today's Guardian

Today's Guardian (26/09/11) contains an article about the shameful links between anti-Semites and socialists by trade unionist Andy Newman. Newman intelligently goes through examples of heroes to those on the left who are not merely opposed to Zionism but are, in fact, full of hatred towards Jews.

Newman gives the example of the Jazz musician Gilad Atzmon who is venerated by leftists including the Socialist Workers Party. Atzmon has written about the differences of "Jewish Marxism...which...is there to mould Marxist dialectic into a Jewish subservient precept".

By admitting that anti-Semitism, dressed up as anti-Zionism, is a real problem that the left has to face, Newman does not teach us anything new, but he should be applauded for criticising his political allies. Left-wing movements around the world would do well to heed Newman's call.

Van Rompuy: "EU is the Fatherland of Democracy"

In an incredibly conceited statement, Van Rompuy claims the EU is the fatherland (and to be P.C. he adds motherland) of democracy.

To demonstrate this point he highlights his very own appointment as President of the Council. Where once the Presidency was taken up by the head of one of the member states, it is now headed by an independent figure. Van Rompuy says this means where before the President acted in his or her own nation state's interest, now the President acts on behalf of all of Europe.

This begs the question, if the EU Council President's Office is now so legitimate that it can objectively represent the whole Union, could Van Rompuy along with Baroness Ashton put together a common foreign policy towards Palestine's statehood bid?  The newspapers from the last few months indicate that they tried and failed.

The question is not: when will the EU hold the level of democratic legitimacy to be capable of representing all member states on the world stage, rather, the question is, will it ever?

Europe Seeing Dangerous Increase in Social Hostilities Relating to Religion

At a fascinating meeting of the Henry Jackson Society in a House of Commons Committee Room yesterday, Dr. Brian Grim talked about the worrying findings of his new book: The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the 21st Century (Cambridge Uni. Press, 2011).

Dr Grim highlighted the startling rate at which social hostilities relating to religion are increasing in Europe based on his research looking at the years from mid-2006 to mid-2009. Five of the 10 countries around the world that had a substantial increase in social hostilities were in Europe: Bulgaria, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These hostilities relate to all sorts of events which now feature commonly in the news in these countries: attacks against places of worship, violent demonstrations held by religious groups and terrorist attacks.

There can be no doubt the root of this problem in Europe is bad policy. The high rate of immigration into Europe, coupled with the high degree of movement between people in Europe is having a devastating effect upon the extent of social cohesion in various European nations.

UKIP has the right policy in this area. To curb this rise in social hostilities, we must reduce the number of immigrants coming to Britain from Europe and the wider world. This is the only sensible policy to protect minority communities and religious freedom.

UKIP FOI in Independence Magazine!

UKIP FOI had a featured article in July's Independence Magazine! UKIP FOI Press Officer Jacob made an excellent case for why UKIP must stay true to its Middle East Policy and why more UKIPers should get involved with UKIP Friends of Israel.

There might have been a little controversy, to be expected, however, UKIP FOI clearly declares that it is not part of the party, rather merely recognised by the party like many other interest groups. Today's professional political parties contain a wide variety of interest groups with all types of stances!

We believe that the existance UKIP Friends of Israel is an expression of pluralism, a liberal value which the UK Independence Party is firmly based upon. We don't want one European superstate but a variety of independent nation-states existing in their own right!

UKIP FOI One Year Anniversary Newsletter Needs YOUR Submissions

In the near feature, UKIP FOI is going to be distributing a newsletter in light of our one year anniversary since we were launched at the 2010 Autumn Conference.

If you would like to submit an article, please send it attached to an email to ukipfriendsofisrael@gmail.com

Best,

Julian,
Director

Arab Spring Is Bad News for Israel

On Tuesday I attended a talk given by Professor Benny Morris at a House of Commons Select Committee Room. Benny Morris had been invited to speak by the Henry Jackson Society on the subject of the implications for Israel of the so-called’ Arab Spring’. Benny Morris is a leading Israeli historian and a Professor of Middle eastern History at Ben-Gurion University in Israel as well as the Kennedy-Leigh Fellow at the Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Oxford University. He has written a number of bestselling books and his articles have appeared in numerous newspapers and journals.

The Select Committee room hosting the event was dotted with MPs and Peers who had slipped into the event to hear Morris’s views on the escalating revolutionary situation in the Arab World.

Morris proposed two chief consequences of the Arab Spring for Israel, both negative. First, Israel would suffer as a result of international attention being directed away from Iran and towards the Arab world. Morris proposes that the particular form of Islam adopted by the Iranian leadership is so extreme that any success for Iran in achieving nuclear weapons would be absolutely fatal for Israel. If the West continue to concentrate on Libya, Syria and other such countries undergoing revolution and does not focus sufficiently on Iran, a nuclear war could be a serious possibility.

Second, Morris suggested that the Arab Spring will bring a more severe threat to the existence of Israel from the neighbouring Arab countries which undergo revolution. Although countries like Egypt and Syria appear to be under the influence of democratic transformers, the likelihood is that any elections will give new power to extremist groups, notably the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the umbrella organisation which is made up of groups such as Hamas, the internationally recognised terrorist organisation in control of the Gaza strip.

Thus, the Arab Spring poses two new severe threats to the existence of Israel. Morris did also highlight the need for Israel to be strong in offering a two-state solution and show the international community Israel wants peace.

However, for me at least, the fundamental conclusion of Morris’s speech must have been that the future of Israel depends upon Western intervention and pressure on the region to prevent the success of extremists, particularly in Iran, but also in the rest of the Arab world.