The Weekly Dish

Quote of the day

“When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated. That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-Muhajiroun. I am a Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah.” — Sayful Islam, British citizen, exercising his constitutional right to free speech in the London Evening Standard. Sayful says he never experienced anti-Muslim discrimination in Britain, had a good job, but decided to join the theo-fascist revolution after September 11.

Another money quote: “As far as I’m concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better. I know it’s going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid — I pray for it, I look forward to the day.” “I pray for it.” Is there something about that statement that we don’t understand? Of course, no sooner had I posted such a statement on my Web site than e-mailed excuses came in. Here’s a classic: “It is the disenfranchised and the discriminated-against (i.e., some blacks who convert to Islam here) who fuel Islamic rage in England. This is not about a death cult, this is about decades of anti-Pakistani discrimination that you happily ignored in your beloved shire. Solve that and you’ve solved your problem, at least in Britain.”

If only it were that simple. As I wrote, the article specifically quotes Sayful Islam as saying he experienced no anti-Muslim discrimination in Britain. He merely thrilled to the idea of theological murder. This is hard for many in the West to understand. But the desire to find excuses for it exasperates me.

Let’s posit another scenario. In this one, members of an extremist, unrepresentative American religious-right fringe decide to bomb two large gay nightclubs in Manhattan. Hundreds are killed. Do you think that the same people who are now finding reasons to explain (although not justify) Islamist terror would do the same to the Christian religious far-right? Do you think they would be asking how America had so marginalized and discriminated against fundamentalist Christians to prompt them to commit mass murder of innocents? Of course not. So if it’s OK to criticize theological murder in one creed, why the reluctance to criticize it in another?

The new GOP

Here’s a charming quote to ponder:

“The New Mexico Republican Central Committee has voted to censure the Sandoval County clerk, who issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The resolution says Republican Victoria Dunlap has brought disgrace to the party. ’Other than assassination, all we can do is censure her,’ said committee chairman Richard Gibbs.”

Other than assassination? Marrying two people of the same gender deserves capital punishment? Only among some of today’s Republicans.

Blair’s gamble

It’s a fascinating moment in British politics. The big constitutional question of the last few decades — Britain’s relationship with Europe — will be put to a referendum some point in the future. Prime Minister Tony Blair has finally decided that the new proposed EU Constitution — which would, in my view, mark the essential end of the European nation-state as we have understood it — will be put up for a vote. Previously, Mr. Blair had balked, fearful that he could receive a stinging rejection from the voters.

But now he’s for it — although it may not happen until after the next election. There are broader ramifications. Nine EU countries are set to vote on the new constitution. If a single one votes against, it will be dead. If Britain votes against, it will be as dead as the infamous parrot. It sounds suicidal for Mr. Blair, but it may not be. He gets to change the subject from Iraq; he gets to take the initiative in arguing against what he believes are euro-skeptic “myths;” and he also sets himself up for an obvious post-election retirement if he loses the vote, handing the poisoned chalice of power to his ally and rival Gordon Brown, some time late next year. Worth watching.

Poll-poring

Some interesting nuggets in the latest Gallup Poll. President Bush’s highest area of opposition comes in health care (understandable, given that it’s a natural Democratic issue) and the deficit. The president’s handling of our national finances is disapproved of by 60 percent of the sample.

I think it has now become true that the Republicans are no longer identified by the public as the party of fiscal responsibility.

But the most revealing question to me was the following: “43. Overall do you think Bush has done more to (unite the country), or has done more to (divide the country)?” Fifty percent said he unites the country; 48 percent said he divides it. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Anti-Semitism watch

The Web is an amazing thing, letting you see the thoughts of people once relatively silent and sealed off from view. Here are a couple of reader responses in a talk-forum on the Web site of the British paper, the Guardian/Observer, a paper that is resolutely anti-Israel. Here’s a classic statement: “Aaronovitch and Cohen should accept that with a Jewish ancestry, they are the last people in Britain with any credibility in the denunciation of the use of violence in pursuit of political ends — let alone the insanity of religious belief.”

Or this comment: “The point is that The Observer should give some thought to employing people of Jewish descent and allowing them to write one-sided diatribes which are more than likely to be latched upon by anti-Semites.” After reading more and more of this, it’s hard not to feel a sickening lurch in the stomach. Is this poison really still around? And in enlightened British circles?