by Melanie Phillips
When David Cameron became
But even I did not foresee just how cynical Cameron would turn out to be -- and how dangerous therefore to the British national interest. Today's truly shocking and quite astoundingly stupid speech in
Declaring himself a fervent supporter of Turkey's bid to join the EU, Cameron declared that those who opposed this bid fell into one of three categories: protectionists; those who believed wrongly in a 'clash of civilisations' between east and west, whereas in fact
those who wilfully misunderstand Islam
... see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version
peddled by the extremists.
Astonishingly, Cameron thus totally ignored the fact that
I no longer recognize
spend most of my time when I am not teaching in the
It wasn't so long ago that the country seemed to be taking
significant strides in the direction of human rights and democracy...
But more recently, the same government has been responsible for a
politics of deception, dirty tricks, fear, and intimidation... It's clear
under the AKP that it was only a few years ago. It's time the
and for the sake of the Turkish people.
Into which category of prejudice would Cameron place the horrified Professor Rodrik – Turkish protectionist, Turkish culture warrior or Turkish Islamophobe?
Or what about the alliances Erdogan has been forging with Islamic terror regimes such as Hamas,
Indeed, Cameron does not see
We hope that the meeting held in
Brazilian and Iranian Foreign Ministers will see
the right direction.
Please will someone tell me that this is merely the Foreign and Commonwealth Office indulging its sardonic sense of humour?
Alas, clearly not. For on Cameron ploughed into the familiar terrain of Planet Appeasement. Out it came again, the British government line that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that those who are, er, trying to destroy the west are guilty of a
So maybe Cameron can enlighten us whether his hero Erdogan -- ally of Hamas,
Kurdish rebels who seek autonomy from
-- represents the 'distorted' version of Islam, or the 'religion of peace'?
Or perhaps he can tell us whether the Muslim Brotherhood, committed to taking over the non-Islamic and not-Islamic-enough domains through both mass murder and cultural conquest, and whose jurists and scholars are the pre-eminent religious authorities throughout the Islamic world, are propounding a 'distorted' version of Islam or the Religion of Peace?
It is of course Cameron himself who is distorting the reality of Islam. For he said:
Third, let me turn to the prejudiced – those who don't differentiate
between real Islam and the extremist version. They don't understand
the values that Islam shares with other religions like Christianity and J
udaism that all of these are inherently peaceful religions.
This is just grotesque. Despite the fact that many ordinary Muslims want only to live in peace and prosperity, Islam is a religion of conquest. Its history – with some exceptions -- is overwhelmingly one of violent expansionism, a characteristic suppressed only by colonialism. For Cameron to ignore and even sanitise the persecution by Islam today of Christians, with the burning of churches, ethnic cleansing and killing or forced conversion of Christians across the developing world, is really quite obscene. Does Cameron really think that all these Muslims are peddling a 'distorted' version of their religion? (A propos, Christianity too has a history of violence since like Islam it is inherently committed to the conversion of unbelievers. Of the three religions, it is only Judaism which has never sought to convert anyone else and thus never posed a threat to other religious -- or anti-religious -- believers.)
But then, Cameron doesn't even appear to understand the basis of the civilisation he is supposedly in office to help defend. For he said:
I will always argue that the values of real Islam are not
incompatible with the values of Europe, that
by religion, but by values.
Does he really think that
Having run up the white flag to the jihad, Cameron then proceeded to deliver a viciously unjust kicking to
Let me be clear: the Israeli attack on the
completely unacceptable. And I have told Prime Minister
Netanyahu we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift,
transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in
Cameron did not condemn the flotilla, whose lead ship the Mavi Marmara was run by Turkish-backed terrorists who set out -- according to the evidence from their own mouths -- to commit an act of jihadi terrorist aggression against
He did not condemn those Turkish-backed terrorists on the Mavi Marmara who attempted to lynch and kidnap the Israeli commandos who boarded the boat and who employed no violence at all until they themselves were set upon.
He did not condemn the Turkish-backed terrorists on the Mavi Marmara who, I am reliably informed, slit open the stomach of one of those Israeli commandos and pulled out his guts before throwing him into the sea.
Instead he condemned the Israelis for defending themselves against this barbaric savagery. He backed this up by misrepresenting this self-defence as an attack -- even though the Israelis boarded the Mavi Marmara, as they did the rest of the flotilla with no untoward incident occurring, merely in order to escort it to an Israeli port to search its cargo for weapons.
Cameron then high-handedly declared that
... we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and
Just who does he think he is? Mighty Mouse, or what?
And then Cameron attacked
Why did Cameron ignore the evidence of the markets full of produce in
Has Cameron even looked at a map? Does he not know that
Why didn't he condemn the severe travel restrictions on Palestinians imposed by
Why did Cameron utter no word of condemnation of Hamas for its exterminatory rocket and human bomb attacks on Israelis? Or does he think that to condemn Hamas is also to show prejudice towards the Religion of Peace? Why, if he really thinks
I have said it before:
It is astounding to hear a Conservative Prime Minister mouth such infantile leftism. If it weren't for Obama's example, it would be unbelievable that any serious politician could spout such drivel. But here surely is the key to all this. Recently, Cameron declared that
the junior partner [to
In 1940, of course,
Hardly, with his Etonian schooling and Oxford First. This was surely not stupidity but cynical callowness of the most extreme and disturbing kind. He wanted to suck up to Obama – and he was prepared even to traduce his own country to do so, by misrepresenting its most iconic and heroic moment of modern times.
I would guess that something similar was at work in his Turkish speech. He doesn't care about upholding truth over lies, justice over injustice, right over wrong; he will play to any populist gallery. And the appeasement of Islamic aggression and the corresponding demonisation and delegitimisation of
For let's get this clear:
And those furies are raging at home too. As I have previously observed, there is now in
1940 this most definitely is not. Weep for
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.