Uncategorized

Muslim Zionist, Kasim Hafeez: “Life is a lot happier when you don’t hate as much.”


This is cross posted by our good friend Ray Cook

Thus said Kasim “Kaz” Hafeez in the final session of the Politics thread at the Big Tent For Israel in Manchester on November 27th.

Kaz was part of a panel discussing “How to change the narrative in the Muslim community”.

He told an enraptured audience how he had very nearly ended up in a Jihadi training camp; how he was brought up to hate Israel and Jews.

Kaz, whose website theisraelcampaign.org, attempts to describe the current anti-Israel and antisemitic trends of Islam in the UK and abroad and put the record straight, made a huge impression on several hundred people, mostly Jewish, assembled in the International Suite of the Piccadilly Hotel in central Manchester.

Even though I knew his story, I was moved to simultaneous tears and laughter as Kaz told us how he is a Zionist and has the Israeli flag on his desk at work.

Tears, because the idea of any non-Jew, let alone a Muslim, proudly declaring himself a Zionist and lover of Israel is profoundly moving. We, the Jewish people, are so inured to hate and being despised that when we find we are not alone, that we have friends, that is worth a few tears of pride and relief.

Laughter, because the idea of a proud, practising Muslim displaying the Israeli flag at work is very amusing.

Then Kaz came out with the quote of the year: 

“Life is a lot happier when you don’t hate as much”.

Everything is contained in that one phrase; life, love, happiness, toleration, respect.

This perfectly describes the solution to what troubles so much of the world today.

Hate. Unthinking, bigoted, hatred fuels the world’s ills.

Such is the hatred much of the Arab and Muslim world feels, especially for Jews. It is this hatred which drives Islamists to acts of violence, not just against Jews, but against other Muslims, Christians and Hindus.

Are they happy in their hate? I doubt it. How can you be happy to hate?

Hatred is not confined to Muslims. Yet it is Islamist terror and intolerance that characterises the beginning of the 21st century.

Kaz made me cry because he offers hope. He offers hope  that Muslims and Jews, Israel and Palestine, can put aside hate and learn tolerance and respect.

It gives me the hope that, in this country, Kaz and those like him, such as Hasan Afzal, can have some influence in their community to stop the hate and lies and half-truths.

If Kaz can do a 180 degree turn, surely many more can manage 90?

How did Kaz learn to be happier? He read, he studied and he had the strength of character and moral courage to go see for himself. he had the honesty to see that everything he had been taught was wrong.

I said to another Muslim at the conference: “We don’t expect Muslims to be Zionists, we just want a fair hearing”. Not the most profound statement I’ve ever made, but it’s true.

Cut the hate and have an honest discussion. Criticise, don’t demonise. Tolerate don’t delegitmise.

It was a great conference and I heard many wonderful things, but Kaz’s simple, heartfelt, unprepared statement will always be the memory and the inspiration I carry from the conference. All the hours, all the hard work, all the arguments and stress were worth it to hear that one axiomatic utterance –

“Life is a lot happier when you don’t hate as much”

78 replies »

  1. I am very much pleased that the queston of the Big Tent for Israel has been raised.

    As you will know, at this event was held a seminar titled “Every Jew is an Ambassador for Israel, why don’t we use them?”

    I would like to ask what this anti-Semitic event, which holds Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel – one of the specific examples of anti-Semitism provided in the EUMC definition on which this site bases its “mission” – is doing being promoted by Jewish nationalists?

    Why are Jewish nationalists promoting anti-Semitism?

    Let us assume that the metaphorical analogy used by the Big Tent for Israel becomes a literal reality, and British Jews take on the ambassadorial role demanded of them.

    What might the result be? Let us imagine.

    Britain, today, is an ally of Zionism and we can assume no great conflict between the UK and Israel.

    Tomorrow, however, this may change. Britain may come to believe that Zionism is not a good tool for the protection of its interests in the Levant. So we may envisage the escalation of disputes between Britain and Israel.

    What then?

    In the event of a dispute between the host country and the home country of an ambassador, that ambassador is called in by the government of the host country to give an account of his home country’s actions.

    In serious cases the ambassador is expelled.

    This is the case for all ambassadors.

    Is this what the Big Tent for Israel wants for British Jews as the ambassadors of Israel?

    To light the ground beneath the feet of British Jews, of all European Jews, is the deepest shame of Zionism today.

      • 1. The conceit is that every Jew is an ambassador for Israel;
        2. That conceit is political, rather than literary; and
        3. The conceit is not mine, but belongs to the Big Tent for Israel.

        It is a radically false proposition; it is also an anti-Semitic proposition.

        Since you are, I assume, an opponent of anti-Semitism and wish to eradicate it, I hope you will take the opportunity to denounce this filth here and now.

    • Daniel,

      Re:

      “As you will know, at this event was held a seminar titled “Every Jew is an Ambassador for Israel, why don’t we use them?”

      I would like to ask what this anti-Semitic event, which holds Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel – one of the specific examples of anti-Semitism provided in the EUMC definition on which this site bases its “mission” – is doing being promoted by Jewish nationalists?

      Why are Jewish nationalists promoting anti-Semitism?”

      If there was an award for great achievements in sophistry, you’d win hands down for the above passages alone.

      Please tell me how precisely asking Jewish Zionists in the diaspora to speak up for Israel is in any way similar to holding them responsible for Israel’s actions.

      The two bear no resemblance to each other.

      But, of course, you knew that, didn’t you?

      • Further problems!

        Once again, without any sort of formatting hopefully this will work!!

        You accuse me of sophistry and go on to say

        “Please tell me how precisely asking Jewish Zionists in the diaspora to speak up for Israel is in any way similar to holding them responsible for Israel’s actions.”

        Haha!

        The Big Tent for Israel did not ask “Jewish Zionists in the diaspora” to do anything; it made the unqualified assertion that “all Jews are ambassadors for Israel”.

        You are either being intellectually dishonest, i.e. engaging in a sophistical elision of the categories “Jew” and “Zionist” for the sake of argument, or you are genuinely incapable of distinguishing between the two, which would make you an anti-Semite.

        You can pick which one you prefer to be, either is fine with me.

        • Daniel, which leads to anti-Semitism?

          Jews speaking up for Israel or…

          Jihadis, Islamists
          – hijacking planes
          – flying hijacked planes into buildings
          – hijacking cruise ships
          – hijacking the 1972 Olympics
          – placing bombs on passenger planes
          – attempting to detonate bombs on passenger planes
          – kidnapping and beheading bound captives
          – executing gay teens in an Islamic Republic
          – denying the existence of homosexuals in an Islamic Republic
          – bombing London buses and the underground
          – threatening another UN member nation with genocide
          – bombing embassies in Africa, murdering hundreds of Africans
          – current day slavery in Sudan
          – murder rampage in Mumbai

          Which is it Daniel?

        • Daniel

          Is there something wrong with countering lies, bias and misinformation?

          This Big Tent event, which I assume was similar to the ‘We Believe’ conference I attended, was not asking you to do anything more than speak up against propaganda.

          I’m happy to do this because – amongst other things – I think it’s the duty of a loyal Brit. People in my country are being mislead by their own media and if this media can do it in the case of Israel, then they can – and may – do it with other issues

          • Penny,

            Daniel is stating that the seminar’s title was: “all Jews are ambassadors for Israel”.
            If true this can be interpreted that by default Jews represent Israel.

            This is antisemitic just like attacking Jewish targets as revenge against Israeli faulty actions, which we all know happans.

            I can tell you that in my sunagogue there are some Jews that do not have anything with Israel (except may be saying “for the next year in Jerusalem” at the end of the Passover meal).

            I wouldn’t like having them as ambassadors to Israel.

            I believe the seminar was mislabelled if indeed the title is nothing more than what Daniel states it was.

              • Daniel would rather we looked at his context. But it’s all in his head.

                When one thinks of how antisemites misrepresent “chosen” I don’t think it’s worth bothering about what they might make of these words.

                • I agree with both you and Josh and saw it in the same light.
                  I tried to make sense of where Daniel is coming from.

                  I guess 2 Jews in a room 3 opinions.

                  Daniel, Hope you don’t think I meant you were Jewish (in case you take offence to that) as it’s a figure of speech…

                  • Thanks Itzik. Daniel is nothing less than a polemicist.He’s Jewish but disagrees with 80% of Jews in the way they wish to stand up to anti-semitism, by not wishing to be associated with Israel, which is the Jews (and those who supported its creation) to be one of the great achievements of all time.

            • Feel free to download the programme here: http://www.thebigtentforisrael.org/#/programme/4557815918

              “Every Jew is an Ambassador for Israel, why don’t we use them? Chair: Vivian Wineman. Speakers: Shimon Cohen, Lorna Fitzsimons, Alan Mendoza”

              These people should be ashamed of their lurid attempt to attach Jews to the state of Israel, thereby putting them at risk.

              It seems also that Richard Millet attended this seminar. He believes it

              “should really have been Countering anti-Semitism: Strategy and Tactics as I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Jews, not Israel or Zionism, be the object of degradation and derision at many of the anti-Israel meetings I have been to.”

              A point made I assume in light of the obvious damage the actual title does to the cause of fighting anti-Semitism – by legitimating it!!

              Well done Richard Millet – shame on the rest who have tried to squirm and defend the indefensible.

    • Daniel says:”Britain, today, is an ally of Zionism and we can assume no great conflict between the UK and Israel.”

      Let you be reminded that Britain remains under threat by common foes. Extreme nationalistic neo-nazi type extremism emanating from the east. Israel’s security needs are in British interests, too. There is a huge amount of cooperation.Whilst oil interest allows for duplicity in British schizophrenic foreign policy, it knows that ultimately it can only rely on the single democracy in the whole region. It could rely on the Jews in WW1 and WW2 but rarely was this feeling reciprocated . israel is Britain’s ally but rarely open-hearted the other way round.

      Daniel goes on to say:
      “Tomorrow, however, this may change. Britain may come to believe that Zionism is not a good tool for the protection of its interests in the Levant. So we may envisage the escalation of disputes between Britain and Israel.

      What then?”

      I have news for you Daniel. Tomorrow has arrived and we know what Britain is and isn’t capable of doing.The Dubai passport issue resulted in an expulsion of a diplomat true, but that’s about it. But Britain is now severely restricted in the running of its armed forces. All it would take to expose its weakness is another confrontation in the Falklands with Argentina. No airforce to speak of and only one carrier. If another front opens up Britain will not be switching loyalties to Iran.

      From what logic do you derive your clear misunderstanding of world
      politics? pray do tell.

      Now the biggest nonsense is in your exposition. Because the Big tent does not speak for ALL Jews, just 80-90% of them , the event by your definition is anti-semitic. Ahem. Please tell me that I have misunderstood this twisted logic and you did mean to say something else.

      • “From what logic do you derive your clear misunderstanding of world
        politics? pray do tell.”

        Let me be very clear: Israel is an ally of last resort for Britain and the US. They rely on Israel because the Arab states, individually or collectively, cannot secure British or US interests – those interests being precisely the continued subordination of the Arab people and cheap access to oil, to which the Arab people are naturally opposed.

        They rely on Israel because they have to.

        If you are even vaguely familiar with the history of British policy towards Zionism and American policy toward Zionism in the 1950’s you will know this very well.

        If they could have brought Egypt into the Baghdad Pact – if they could have kept Iraq in it! – you would never have heard of America’s “bond” with Israel, because it would never have existed.

        But, of course, they did not and could not – so now we do hear so much about that “unshakeable bond” between the US and Israel. Indeed – as unshakeable as the bond of any man’s is toward his only possible friend!

        In fact, this remains a source of much embarrassment to them. See the Obama/Sarkozy exchange for proof of that.

        The British and the US find Israel useful, if annoying, and you are right – they will squander the blood of any millions of Jews to secure their interests whilst lulling them into a trance with lies about the Zionist dream being forever underwritten by US and British friendship.

        That friendship is conditional and will be withdrawn when it becomes too great a liability. I fear, I really fear, that what wakes the Israeli Jews from this trance will not be pleasant – and neither the British nor the US will do anything whatsover to help the used lemon of the state of Israel or her people.

        • Daniel, I am quite well aware of the possibility in given circumstances a new landscape where Jews and Israel need not only be abandoned but may be targeted, though history shows that if this happens, it will have nothing to do with Israel, but base anti-semitism, which always has a corrupt logic.

          Coming back to the topic you initially raised, and which Adam asked you to answer ( “Please tell me how precisely asking Jewish Zionists in the diaspora to speak up for Israel is in any way similar to holding them responsible for Israel’s actions.” ) , you may now wish to answer.

          In my view, support for Israel and speaking the truth about it is in no way taking responsibility for its every policy or even agreeing with its policies. Israel is however being abused in a way that fits the EUMC’s working definition which the Big Tent event is attempting to address.

    • Good God, you are a broken record. We have shown you that you are wrong, but you are so stupid that you seem not to understand plain English.

      In order to fit your own agenda you are making up garbage out of whole cloth. You apparently have such contempt for Jews that you think you can come to a website where a lot of Jews and knowledgeable others post pull the wool over our eyes. Get over yourself, you are neither that smart nor that charming.

      You are wrong. You purposely misunderstand both lexical items and concepts in order to pretend that you have found something with which to beat us. You have actually done nothing other than to make yourself look like the ugly, bigoted racist that you are. We have seen your like many times before, and will not doubt be plagued again many times in the future by your ilk. Go back under whatever slimy rock you slithered out from and bore someone else.

    • Daniel,

      You raise one point but take it to another level in my opinion.

      The point which is valid is that the language used (as per your statement) on the title of the seminar you point to was misleading to say the least.

      My problems with it is that not every Jew has a connection with Israel or even sees the Zionist project in the same light, so the title is devisive among Jews.

      If, however,the meaning, and I suspect it was, is metaphoricaly than that should have been clearer.
      Jews can be ambassadors to the notion in which Jerusalem and Israel have always been a part of their lives and prayers through out history.
      They may also be ambassadors to Israeli promisses to the foreigners and non jews who live among them.

      In theory the Jews are meant to be charitable to the Goy, Ger and Nochry as well as Evion (poor).
      Israel declaration of independance cemented the right of non Jews among them.

      Sadly this has been abused as a result of 60 years de facto war.
      Never the less the Israelis as a whole (unlike our Arab neighbours) tried to do the best they can to accomodate these promisses.

      True, greivences happen all the time and Israel is no different.
      Jewish way of life, rationality and diversity is similar to those Israelis have.

      I guess this is the metaphor.

      • “My problems with it is that not every Jew has a connection with Israel or even sees the Zionist project in the same light, so the title is devisive among Jews.”

        Not because it legitimates anti-Semitism?

          • If I wanted to say that, I would.

            As it’s false I don’t want to say that, and therefore I haven’t said that.

            I am coming to believe that you are incapable of rational discourse.

                  • Ahh, in a different connection. Apologies. I assumed your reply referred to the post it is attached to. Clearly not.

                    My comment down there is purely to point up the fact, the undisputable fact, that being pro-Israel does not mean one is not anti-Semitic.

                    The proof of this, as I have indicated, is the legion of East European SS-fanclub right wingers that are very pro-Israel and very anti-Semitic.

                    • I cannot reply directly below your post.

                      You say

                      “Please explain how one can be PRO-Israel AND ANTI-Semitic.”

                      I would say: ask them. I simply state the facts of the case: there are many, many, many anti-Semites that are pro-Israel.

                      At a guess I would say that they are pro-Zionist because they see Jewish emigration to Israel as a convenient way of reducing the number of Jews in their countries.

                      An anti-Semitic goal to be fought against I’m sure you will agree.

                    • “At a guess I would say that they are pro-Zionist because they see Jewish emigration to Israel as a convenient way of reducing the number of Jews in their countries.”

                      Does the existence of 48 Muslim majority countries lessen the number of Muslims emigrating to Europe?

                    • Daniel, it doesn’t legitimate anti-semitism. Conversely anything a Jew does gives an anti-semite a pretext. Some Jews for example may be observant but would not like to adopt a haredi lifestyle. Anti-semites don’t like haredi jews or any kind of Jew. The non-haredi jew thinks that haredi jews can give jews a bad name and opposes haredi jews for this reason alone. In this confused equation, you are preferring division of the ranks to speak against anti-semitism.

                      Hating Israel , in the way that it occurs IS anti-semitic. Denying Jews the right to self-determination IS anti-semitic. You may not agree with Israel. Fine. Don’t go to any events. But disagreeing with Israel by denying the right to Jews to have a homeland and not denying everyone else that right, IS anti-semitic.

                  • I would also remind you of the opinion of Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies of British Jews:

                    “The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web — it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel.”

                    • Your link to the bnp website does not work.

                      I found an article in Der Guardian from 2008,

                      “BNP seeks to bury antisemitism and gain Jewish votes in Islamophobic campaign”

                      excerpt:
                      “Despite all its attempts to portray itself differently we know it is still the same antisemitic, racist party it always was.”

                      Only a dunce like you Daniel would believe anything the bnp says.

                    • Only me and the Board of Deputies eh?

                      What a world.

                      You can concede you’re wrong at any point you know; it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

                      But… Just out of interest, what are the BNP lying about here?

                      Their pro-Zionism or their anti-Semitism? And what grounds have you got for that? Thanks.

                    • Are you suggesting the quote is a fabrication?

                      Clearly it is not.

                      This also ignores the other links I have provided as well as the clear fact that, as I have said, there are many, many, many anti-Semites that are pro-Israel.

                      Everyone knows this.

                      You do not need a link to articles showing this any more than I have to throw an apple at you to “prove” gravity.

                      I say again: you can concede you’re wrong at any point you know; it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

  2. [You have said all this before Daniel. It’s becoming rather tiresome, particularly in the light of the rather bizarre connections you make. Anyone who wanted to answer you would have done so when you first posted in this vein. Why are you still obsessing about it?]

    Turing to the article, I am delighted to read it. Kasim Hafeez is a brave man indeed, and if he looks in I would like to ask him how many like-minded others he knows of and is in touch with and how we can help them to make themselves heard.

    Adam, can CiFWatch ask Kasim to write regularly for us about his opinions?

    • I did not receive a satisfactory response; as this article also references the Big Tent I have taken the chance to again give the contributors to this website the chance to denounce anti-Semitism at the Big Tent for Israel.

      And, indeed, let us “tur” to the article in this connection.

      A man such as Kaz, we can assume, been convinced to turn against anti-Semitism. This is excellent.

      What function would an event such as the seminar entitled “Every Jew is an Ambassador for Israel, why don’t we use them?” held by the Big Tent for Israel have in such a process of turning a man away from anti-Semitism?

      He will be told that Zionism is to be opposed; he will be told that in doing this it is legitimate to attack Jews in Britain on the basis that, precisely, every Jew is an Ambassador for Israel.

      When, doubting the veracity of this claim, he asks for proof, a crooked hand will point straight to the Big Tent for Israel and he will be asked ‘There, what more proof do you need? QED.’

      The function of the Big Tent for Israel is to legitimate anti-Semitism by engaging in radically false anti-Semitic claims that every Jew is an Ambassador for Israel.

      I’m sure a man such as Kaz would bear this contention out.

      • The Big Tent for Israel seems to be a lot safer than the Big Tent for Islamism.

        I haven’t heard of Jews blowing up synagogues of other Jews as Muslims did to mosques recently in Afghanistan, killing 50 people.

        In your view, have the 7/7/05 London bus and underground bombings by Islamists legitimized or validated “Islamophobia”?

        • That is a false equivalence.

          If a Salafist stated that “all Muslims are committed to violence to impose sharia” then I would certainly say that the function of such statements is to legitimate Islamophobia by mirroring false Islamophobic propositions.

          Likewise with a Zionist organisation that states every Jew is an ambassador for Israel. Such an organisation legitimates anti-Semitism by mirroring false anti-Semitic propositions.

      • Daniel, you have missed so many points. Here’s just one.

        You say: “A man such as Kaz, we can assume, been convinced to turn against anti-Semitism. This is excellent.”

        He hasn’t just turned against anti-semitism Daniel. He has found it in his heart to stop hating and even appreciating Jews. He stands with us, not on the side of demonizers and terrorism.He holds Jews as equals and Israel as a country , to be treated like any other. Yes, by implication he is against anti-semitism and bigotry, but much more. And he feels good about it too.

        • “He holds Jews as equals and Israel as a country , to be treated like any other. Yes, by implication he is against anti-semitism and bigotry, but much more.”

          Ny implication of his pro-Zionist stance he is not anti-Semitic? Pro-Israel = not anti-Semitic? Is this your equation?

          By such dirty methods most of East Europe’s SS-fanclub right wing has been absolved too.

          • Genuine pro-Israel supporters I would say are not anti-semitic. Neo-fascst “support” for Israel is everything to do with furthering its own agenda and nothing to do with being concerned about the Jew’s welfare Daniel.Hence the equation stands more or less.

      • As I have said, Daniel, you are obsessing.

        Are YOU sure of what exactly you mean?

        Many of your posts above make little sense because they lack links, and indeed evidence of what I would call joined up thinking.

        What is the emotion behind the Big Tent, which exercises you so?

  3. Daniel,

    The conference, by definition, was held for those Jews (and non-Jews for that matter) who consider themselves Zionists – which, as I’m sure you know, merely denotes that you support Jewish self-determination in our historic homeland. Thus, the words “big tent for Israel”.

    Those Jews who are outside the tent – those who find my nation’s existence not worth defending – were of no concern to us, as we weren’t going to “discuss” why Israel should exist.

    Those attending the event, who were, by definition, Zionists, were asked to advocate on Israel’s behalf.

    Again, please tell me what this has to do with holding such Jews “responsible” for the behavior of other Jews.

    • You state

      “The conference, by definition, was held for those Jews (and non-Jews for that matter) who consider themselves Zionists”

      Yet the conference itself did not engage in such “definitions”. Instead it engaged in broad, false, and anti-Semitic statements regarding the position of “every Jew”.

      The Big Tent could easily have titled the seminar “Every Zionist is…” but it did not. The question is why it did not.

      Futher you say

      “Those Jews who are outside the tent – those who find my nation’s existence not worth defending – were of no concern to us, as we weren’t going to “discuss” why Israel should exist.”

      Sorry, is your nation Israel? Or are you implying that non- or anti-Zionist Jews do not have any interest in the preservation of the Jewish nation?

      “Israel” and “the Jewish nation” are of course also distinct categories.

    • Adam,

      I only have Daniel’s version of the seminar’s title.

      If it is true, I’m afraid that it is indeed misleading, generalisying and portray a direct connection between Diaspora Jews and Israeli government actions since 1948.

      I am certain that this was not the intention but never the less, words can be interpreted in many ways and at a time like this, titles like this one can draw the wrong conclusion as Daniel clearly shows.

      • Headlines is one thing. The content is what counts. Daniel is only interested in headlines. He doesn’t consider to want to be included. “Ambassador for Israel” is a loose term too. One can go on forever deconstructing and one ends up nowhere. What’s forgotten (or not, depending on polemics being employed) with people like Daniel is that everything happens in a context. Remove the context and one’s free to argue anything. There is thus no anchor to the argument.The context today is that Israel is under threat ideologically and the campaign against it is strong. Events like the “Big tent” is a call to arms to speak up to combat lies and tell the truth and to use ones’ brains to do it.

        If it wasn’t headlines that were misleading, it would be something else. What he has shown in his statement is utter ignorance but at the same time is capable of spewing hateful invective.

        As for the “every Jew” point: There is a religious association that Jews are are responsible for each othe. On Yom Kippur we speak of “our sins” collectively. It is in this context that Daniel misses the significance of the term. One can argue that not all Jews would want to be collectively guilty of all sins, so let’s change the prayers for just those few who might disagree.

        • Josh,

          I agree with you but would like to add:

          Israel has been under threat since late 19 century.
          Israelites have been under threat since biblical times.
          What’s new?

          As for us looking after each other;
          Tell me why the Chief Rabbi to the UK would rather goes and sit in a a church but will not meet his liberal counterpart on a Jewish holiday to wish them happy new year for example?
          So much for looking after one another.

      • Itsik, I automatically inserted the word “potential” before “ambassador” and that is the commonsense interpretation.

        Why does Daniel not apply commonsense? Are the initials LTI correct?

        • Ariadne,

          Whether I agree with you or not is besides the point.

          We live in days where liberal papers push agendas which borders with the message ralayed in the Protocols.

          Having a headline like that for a seminar is reckless and shouldn’t give amunition to those morons that are out there looking for it.

          In any case it is a sensitive header to suggest that every Jew can be an ambassador to Israel.
          At least in my opinion.

  4. Daniel

    You wrote:

    “……and British Jews take on the ambassadorial role demanded of them.”

    Tell me where, how and when any ‘demand’ has been placed on British Jews?

    You project into a situation that hasn’t happened: that there may be some breakdown in relations between the UK and Israel, and that this might ‘light a fire’ under British Jews because they may have a cultural attachment to Israel. Well, our forces are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don’t see fires being lit under ordinary men and women living in the UK who have an attachment to these two countries.

    But if our government was to harrass or expel them then it would be a sign that the UK has lost the plot, isn’t the democratic country we live in today and has become rather dangerous for many other groups. Who’d want to stay? After all, many German Jews believed that their loyalty, contribution to their country and patriotic, military service would exempt them from the Nazi wrath. It didn’t. When a country turns on any single one of its minority groups, it’s a sign that there is a sickness within. Time for anyone with half a brain to get out, in fact.

    Finally, you assume that being an ‘Ambassador’ for Israel is a negative. Aren’t you proud of Israel’s technological, medical, scientific and agricultural developments? Its Nobel Prize winners? It’s responses to natural disasters beyond its shores? Or indeed – any of the many, many contributions it makes to today’s world?

  5. Those outside the tent might be accused of cognitive liberal egocentrism – see Richard Landes below

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2011/12/05/projecting-schadenfreude-and-cultural-aids-norway-tries-to-deal-with-a-wave-of-muslims-raping-norwegian-infidels/

    this is a good example of an aggressive assertion of liberal cognitive egocentrism. pretzelberg apparently assumes that the idea of religiously sanctioned rapes by muslim men of infidel women is a scurrilous defamation of islam. alas, the evidence is strong. Alas, we have fatwas that permit jihadis to capture and rape infidel women, in Pakistan we have Christian women as Muslim sex-slaves, in London we have demonstrators promising to rape Danish women as spoils of Jihad (at 2:29), in France we have Muslim youth gang raping French women (called tournantes – passing arounds), and on and on.

    These things are really quite unimaginable to the modern western sensibility, and since nothing in even extreme versions of Jewish or Christian fundamentalism come anywhere near this kind of permission/encouragement, it’s hard for us to imagine that this goes on in Islam. Of course, to get aggressive with your ignorance and accuse people who are not covering their eyes of “scandalous muslim bashing” is perhaps taking aggressive naivete several notches too high.

  6. The problem here is that Daniel is latching on to what seems like an unfortunately-worded title of a seminar and drawing from that the conclusion that the entire Big Tent event, and all those who organised it and attended it, are guilty of anti-semitism and/or furthering it.

    This is patently absurd, although I understand that it is unfortunate, as it can be used by those already committed to anti-semitic tropes to justify their bigoted views. I imagine it will be quoted on CiF and other such fora just as supporters of Israel repeatedly re-print pictures of Ahmedinejad at a session entitled “A World without Zionism”.

      • Please don’t think I am suggesting there is a moral equivalence between Ahmedinejad’s wish to wipe Israel off the map and a possible over-statement of the need for diaspora Jews to support Israel. I am merely suggesting that both images can be used by opposing parties in similar ways in the online comment war, and regretting that the anti-semites have been given yet another stick with which to beat us.

        AS for the comments you and Joshua have made about context, Ariadne, I agree with you, but the haters will not explain the context when they trumpet this as support for their vile views.

        • There’s so much else they abuse that I think this small stick – and diversionary tactic – doesn’t merit too much attention.

          Thank you for the elaboration of your views,

    • In my work, we call it “making lemons out of lemonade” and the tendency is evident in most of Daniel’s posts.

  7. I’m very proud of you, Kasim Hafeez. You found the truth and you’re not afraid to show your thoughts about Israel as a Muslim. May all muslim people follow your way and stop the hate and the lies.
    God bless you

  8. I’m a christian from Australia who loves Israel and only found out about Kasim from looking at the Jerusalam post, was amaze and thankful to God of Kasim belief and I am praying for him.