Monday, June 26, 2017

Report: Muslim Extremists Drive Anti-Semitic Violence in Western Europe

Individuals of Muslim background stand out among perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence in Western Europe, according to a new report by the University of Oslo Center for Research on Extremism. The next highest offending group was found to be left wing extremists.

The survey is titled Antisemitic Violence in Europe, 2005-2015, Exposure and Perpetrators in France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Russia. It looks at the rate of anti-Semitic attacks in a range of countries, finding  Jews’ exposure to anti-Semitic violence appears to have been highest in France in the period surveyed, lower in Sweden and Germany, and lowest in the United Kingdom.
The survey found that “Russia clearly stands out with a very low number of incidents considering Russia’s relatively large Jewish population. Russia is also the only case in which there is little to indicate that Jews avoid displaying their identity in public.” It adds “attitude surveys do suggest that antisemitism is particularly widespread among those most hostile to Israel.”
As for who was behind the reported acts, the survey concluded that Muslim extremists clearly lead the way.

The survey examines the key drivers of anti-Semitic violence and found that religion and anti-Israel sentiment combined to drive most attacks. Attitude surveys corroborate this picture in so far as anti-Semitic attitudes are far more widespread among Muslims than among the general population in Western Europe. It ruled out any link between events in Europe and rising tensions in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as causal effects. The report said:
“The number of reported attacks on Jews does not always increase when the conflict in the Middle East flares up…  even though some attacks on Jews in Europe do occur in the wake of events in the Middle East, there is no direct causal link between Israeli government actions and subsequent attacks on Jews in Europe. Antisemitic attitudes and violence propensity are likely necessary conditions to trigger such attacks. In other words, events in the Middle East provide individuals in Western Europe who hold antisemitic views and are prone to violence with an occasion to attack Jews.”
The report’s release comes just two weeks after Franco-German broadcasters were accused of censorship when they shelved a documentary film about European Jews facing persecution by Muslim migrants, saying it was not “balanced” and the topic was “very sensitive”.
Chosen and Excluded — The Hate for Jews in Europe highlighted anti-Semitism on the continent and depicts the violence Jews experience from Muslim communities in cities such as Paris.
The socialist mayor of the Paris suburb of Saracelles, François Pupponi, interviewed for the documentary, said pro-Palestinian groups had encouraged hatred of Israel.
“For a certain number of young people ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ are one and the same so if you’re against Israel, you’re also against synagogues,” Mr. Pupponi said.

German Police: Asylum Seekers Are Taking over Illegal Drug Trade

Police in the northern German region of Schleswig-Holstein have expressed concern over finding more and more asylum seekers involved in peddling illegal narcotics and fear the drug gangs could take over the area using violence.

Lübeck police are noticing a rise in the number of mass brawls in the city, some of which have seen the use of knives and involving 20 people at a time. Police say there have been 12 such incidents since May and many involve asylum seekers who have links to the illegal drug trade, Schleswig-Holsteinische Zeitungsverlag reports.
“Regarding some of the brawls, we know they definitely had a drug background,” said Stefan Muhtz, spokesman of the Directorate of Lübeck. Though the men involved are asylum seekers from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and North Africa, Muhtz said: “We are not aware of ethnic conflicts.”
“The consumption of hard drugs and drug trafficking are increasing,” Muhtz added.
Traditionally, it has been Germans and Russian-Germans who have been behind illegal drugs trafficking, but police say they have noticed more and more asylum seekers involved.
Lübeck is not the only place to see mass brawls involving asylum seekers and drugs. In Eutin, four men were injured after a group of 15 asylum seekers fought each other with bats and knives. The market square where the brawl occurred was later declared a “dangerous place” by local police.
In the German capital of Berlin, police are also noticing an increase of asylum seekers becoming involved in the drug trade. Arab gangs in the city are said to be actively recruiting low-level dealers in asylum homes by enticing them with quick and relatively easy cash.
In neighbouring Austria, authorities have noticed more and more asylum seekers becoming active in peddling drugs, especially in Vienna. The influx of Nigerian migrants, who make up a vast proportion of those selling drugs on the streets, has driven up drug crime by 10 per cent.
Another worrying trend that emerged during the investigation into the Berlin Christmas market terror attack has been the increased connection between the drug trade and radical Islamic Salafists. The man responsible for the attack, failed Tunisian asylum seeker Anis Amri, was known to have been involved selling drugs in Berlin.
In late May, police in Berlin arrested nine asylum seekers thought to be dealing drugs. They later found out that four of the men were not only radical Islamists but had direct links to the Islamic State terror group.

Europe Is Still Ailing: A glimpse into the dark malaise behind the EU project.

Reprinted from
Recent elections in France, the Netherlands, and Austria, in which Eurosceptic populist and patriotic parties did poorly in national elections, suggest to some that the EU is still strong despite Britain’s vote to leave the union. Yet the problems bedeviling the EU ever since its beginnings in 1992 have not been solved. Nor are they likely to be with just some institutional tweaks and adjustments. “More Europe,” that is, greater centralization of power in Brussels at the expense of the national sovereignty of member states, is not the answer. The flaws in the whole EU project flow from its questionable foundational assumptions.
Those problems have been identified and analyzed for decades. EU economic growth and per capita GDP consistently lag behind those of the U.S., in part because of over-regulated dirigiste economies, over-generous social welfare transfers, expensive retirement benefits, restrictive employment laws, and higher taxes. Some countries have addressed these problems, most importantly Germany. But Germany’s economic success has exacerbated the stark contrast with the poorer performing Mediterranean countries. They are still struggling with debt and deficits, and suffering double-digit unemployment rates, particularly among the young, which range from 15 to 25 percent. Germany’s current dominance makes the EU look less like a union of sovereign states and more like a German economic empire.
Particularly ominous is the case of France, the second largest economy in the EU. France is facing cumulative national debt––government, household, and business––that totals 250 percent of its GDP, up 66 percent since 2007. This total does not include unfunded pension and health-care obligations. New president Emmanuel Macron has pledged neoliberal reforms to begin correcting this unsustainable drag on growth, yet previous attempts at even minor changes by French presidents have been met with street demonstrations comprising millions of protestors. It remains questionable whether there is the will among the citizens and their political leaders to face the harsh cuts and painful adjustments necessary to right France’s fiscal ship. Given the size of France’s economy, a fiscal crisis similar to that still troubling Greece will severely stress and further fracture the EU.
Europe’s economic woes are entwined with a serious socio-cultural problem: Europeans are not having children. Birth rates are at 1.58 child per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. Since human minds and entrepreneurial creativity are modern capitalism’s most valuable resource, a shrinking and aging population––by 2030, one in four Europeans will be 65 years or older––bodes ill for future economic growth, leading to fewer and fewer workers paying taxes to support more and more of the aged drawing benefits. Pragmatic considerations aside, the failure to have children is also a failure to invest in the future or even concern oneself with the fate of one’s country beyond this life. Such attitudes promote an Après nous, le déluge mentality, and turns la dolce vita into the highest good.
Such a mentality is dangerous in a world in which expansionary powers like Russia and modern Islamic jihadism are on the march. In regard to the latter, for decades the EU’s feckless immigration policies that have let in millions of immigrants, the majority from Muslim nations, without any effort to enforce assimilation to, or acceptance in, the host countries. The result is growing enclaves of unassimilated Muslims overrepresented on welfare rolls and in prisons. Since 9/11 and the global expansion of jihadist terror, these already dysfunctional internal colonies have become recruiting pools for jihadist outfits like al-Qaeda and ISIS.
In 2015 German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door policy, which invited in a million, scarcely vetted immigrants, half from the jihadist abattoirs of Syria, worsened the problem and created a rift with those EU countries like Hungary that are on the geographical front-lines of the influx, and disinclined to risk their national safety and identity. Unsurprisingly, terrorist attacks have increased over the last few years, with over 300 Europeans killed in France, Germany, England, and Stockholm just since January 2016. Besides these attacks, in many EU countries assaults, rapes, honor killings, and murders are becoming more and more frequent––sex crimes by migrants in Germany have doubled in one year. Despite the carnage, the EU has done little to address the failure of assimilation, the growth of separatism, and appeasement of radical Islamic proselytizing that have nourished European jihadism.
These problems, however, reflect the deeper malaise behind the EU project. Quite simply, what comprises the unifying beliefs and values that can attract the loyalty and affection of Europeans not part of the cognitive and economic elites who have benefitted from unification? What unifying idea can weld together 28 different nations comprising diverse cultures, languages, political norms, traditions, mores, folkways, religions, and histories? What can inspire a loyalty to “Europe” as passionate as the patriotism that a people feels for its particular way of life and national identity?
The Christianity that helped create the idea of Europe in the first place is today moribund, particularly in Western Europe. An acknowledgement of this heritage was not even allowed in the preamble to the European Constitution, unsurprising given that the rate of regular church attendance is in single digits. As for culturally centripetal national loyalties, the EU was born in the rejection and demonization of nationalism, which was blamed for fascism and Nazism, a questionable claim that confuses liberal nationalism with ethno-nationalism, and leaves the average Frenchman or German or Italian adrift in a globalized virtual “community.” As French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut has written, “It is inhuman to define man by blood and soil but no less inhuman to leave him stumbling through life with the terrestrial foundations of his existence taken out from under him.”
A “European” identity is an abstraction, one that ignores the particular, local cultural and linguistic coordinates of most peoples’ existence. These persistent national identities are the fault-lines running below the EU superstructure of supranational institutions and regulations. They may lie quiet for a time, but as we saw in 2008 during the economic crisis, and as we see today with the challenge of jihadist terror and careless immigration policies, in times of stress and uncertainty they may return and unleash destructive passions. The “return of the repressed” is seldom a peaceful affair.
The challenge facing Europe today is not just reforming its economies or crafting saner immigration policies. It is whether the EU leadership can allow a greater recognition of and respect for the member nations’ distinct identities and sovereignty, rather than scorning them as proto-fascist throwbacks to a more savage time, to be subordinated to a technocratic supranational elite. On that depends the cure for what ails the EU today.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Illegal Somali Immigrant Awarded Compensation for ‘Unlawful Detention’ Brutally Beats Woman

Violent Somali immigrant Abdi Yusuf, who is set to receive compensation from the British government for being “unlawfully detained” whilst awaiting deportation, was jailed in June for beating a woman.

Forty-one-year-old Yusuf, who has a history of violent assault, had been detained following a previous jail term because he was considered at high risk of absconding and reoffending.
But a High Court ruled the migrant was eligible for damages for being detained unlawfully at an immigration removal centre pending deportation. The judge said that much of the time spent in custody awaiting deportation was justified – but the final six months were unlawful.
After being released, the Somalian, who has ten convictions for 20 offences and has served prison sentences for actual and grievous bodily harm, brutally beat a woman, reports The Daily Mail.
The compensation ruling came a few weeks before Yusuf was due at Stratford Magistrates in east London to stand trial for the assault. Yusuf failed to attend the hearing and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
The trial went on in his absence and the court heard how Yusuf and his co-accused, Cali Bashir, 48, had beaten the woman.
On a 999 recording, a female university student pleaded with the call handler. “Two men are hitting her,” she said, and described how they they had started undressing her and “pushed her against the railings”.
The student added: “She has got blood on her and one of the men is saying he is going to knock her out. They are saying they are going to kill her.”
The judge described the recording as “the most distressing 999 call I have heard in some time”.
In absentia, Yusuf was found guilty of assault. It was by chance that authorities managed to catch him as he was later arrested over a separate offence a few days later.
Yusuf, who had come to the UK legally in 1989, has been fighting to stay in the UK since completing a four-year jail sentence for assault in 2012, the jail term serving as an automatic trigger for removal of legal status and deportation back to Somaliland.
Scotland Yard said Yusuf was sentenced to six months in prison on the 12th of June, his jail term likely to push his deportation to next year.
This is not the first case of a violent criminals in the country illegally receiving compensation for unlawful detention.
In 2015, Breitbart London reported that an illegal immigrant, who was convicted of sexually abusing two women on a train, was set to receive up to £7,000 because he was kept in jail for ‘too long’ as officials tried to deport him.
And earlier this year, £27,000 was rewarded to an illegal migrant convicted for attempted rape because he was held in immigration detention for too long whilst the authorities tried, unsuccessfully, to deport him.

Merkel's about face on refugees key to her electoral surge

By Rick Moran

German national elections will be held in September and Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative coalition party, the CDU-CSU, has widened its lead over the social democrats to 15 points.
Merkel's comfortable lead is attributed to the momentum her party has built in winning 3 straight regional elections. The poll gains are also seen as a validation of the chancellor's change of heart on refugees. Her "open door" policy that resulted in more than a million migrants flooding into Germany two years ago gave the nationalist party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, a huge boost. But last year, Merkel did an about face and severely restricted the flow of migrants into the country. Most of the AfD voters who would normally have voted conservative have come home.
The Christian Democrats (CDU) and its CSU Bavarian sister party were steady at 39 percentage points in the Emnid poll published in Bild am Sonntag newspaper, while the SPD fell one percentage point to 24.
The SPD had surged from 16 points behind the CDU/CSU in mid-January to a 33-32 lead in mid-February after nominating Martin Schulz as chancellor candidate. The SPD held even with the CDU/CSU at 33-33 until early April before falling behind.
Merkel's conservatives won three regional elections in the last three months while the initial euphoria surrounding Schulz, a former European Parliament president, wore off.
Despite the widening lead, Merkel's CDU/CSU is far short of a majority and might have a difficult time finding a junior coalition partner. Their preferred partner, the Free Democrats (FDP) were steady at 7 percentage points in the Emnid poll.
The pro-environment Greens, who could form a center-left coalition with the SPD or a center-right alliance with the CDU/CSU, were up 1 point to 8 percentage points. The far-left Left party were steady at 9.
The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), ostracized by the other parties and without any coalition partner options, was steady at 8 percentage points.
The social democrats have failed so far to offer a credible alternative to CDU. Their leader, former European Parliament President Martin Schulz, has decided to run as a social justice warrior, proposing to raise taxes on the rich. But Germany has had strong economic growth under Merkel and not very many voters appear interested in redistributive policies.
By pulling the teeth of the nationalist's agenda, Merkel has positioned herself and her party to win a plurality of votes on election day. But forming a coalition with other minor parties will be a challenge and, at present, her options appear limited.

Mr Corbyn's Glastonbury

Deutsches Historisches Museum

Israeli party chair slams Berlin mayor for allowing Hezbollah rally

Yair Lapid, the chairman of Yesh Atid, sent a hard-hitting letter on Saturday to Berlin's mayor Michael Müller for permitting Hezbollah -- an organization proscribed as a terrorist entity by many countries -- to march in Berlin on Friday. The Jerusalem Post obtained a copy of the letter. Lapid wrote: "This past week a lecture by a Knesset Member from Yesh Atid [Aliza Lavie] was violently disrupted by radical anti-Israel activists at a university in Berlin. A few days later demonstrators marched through your city proudly displaying photographs of the leader of an anti-Semitic terrorist organization." "As the son of a Holocaust survivor I was deeply disturbed that in the same week that a group of Jews are targeted, antisemites are given the freedom of the city. We have stood in solidarity with Germany when you were hit by brutal terror attacks. We did that because we identified deeply with the pain caused by terrorism and we wanted to express our support for the people of you city." Lapid's father, Yosef “Tommy", survived the Hitler movement in Hungary. On Tuesday, activists from the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) campaign verbally attacked MK Aliza Lavie and the 82-year-old Holocaust survivor Deborah Weinstein at the Humboldt University in Berlin. A spokesman did not immediately respond to a Post query if the activists, who have since been identified, have been banned from the university. Lapid took aim at the mayor's apparent reluctance to crackdown on Islamic terrorism in the capital. "We cannot fight terrorism alone. Terrorism is global and so is the fight against it. We must share intelligence, share experience and develop the methods which work. Before all else, we must fight back against the attempt by terrorists to take advantage of democracy and freedom of speech to advance their criminal agenda." "The leader of Hezbollah, whose image was held aloft in your streets, delivered his Al-Quds day speech in Lebanon this week while crowds chanted 'Death to Israel.'" "When people march in the streets of Berlin holding up photographs of the leader of Hezbollah, they celebrate the murder of our families and of our children, they celebrate the attempt to destroy the fragile coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Israel. They celebrate terror. " Lapid, who serves on the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense committee, added, "Freedom of expression doesn’t extend to the glorification of murder. Freedom of expression doesn’t extend to incitement. Hezbollah is no different to ISIS or Al Qaeda in their attitude towards us. They hate Jews and they hate Christians, they hate women and they hate the LGBT community, they hate us and they hate you." "Someone who is willing to carry the image of the leader of Hezbollah on the streets of Berlin is someone who is willing to murder on the streets of Berlin. The people who marched in your city on ‘Al-Quds Day' aren’t just our enemies, they are yours. Mr. Mayor, your decision to remain silent in the face of this incitement and hatred is a grave mistake. Allowing the glorification of terrorism in your city won’t appease extremists, it will embolden them." He ended his letter, asking Müller, "We would never allow a parade celebrating the murder of your citizens, why do you allow a parade celebrating the murder of ours?" According to Berlin's intelligence agency -- comparable to Israel's Shin Bet -- there are 250 active Hezbollah members and supporters in Berlin. A total of 950 Hezbollah operatives are in Germany. The Merkel administration agreed to outlaw Hezbollah's military wing in 2013 but declined to outlaw all of Hezbollah in the Federal Republic. When asked about the Hezbollah march, a spokesman for Müller told the Post on Friday that the mayor does not comment on foreign organizations. The mayor spokeswoman Claudia Sünder wrote the Post by email on Sunday, saying "a ban of the demonstration is a matter for the Senate administration of the interior" and does not fall into the mayor's purview.

Terrorist Who Murdered Lee Rigby Radicalises Dozens of Prison Inmates Who Vow Jihad on Release


One of the terrorists who murdered Fusilier Lee Rigby is radicalising other prison inmates who vow to become jihadists when they are released, prison sources have revealed.

Sources at Her Majesty’s Prison Frankland have told The Mirror that Michael Adebolajo, who along with fellow Islamist Michael Adebowale, murdered and attempted to behead Fusilier Lee Rigby near Woolwich Barracks in 2014, has already radicalised dozens of prisoners.
Non-Muslim prisoners are said to have converted under the influence of the terrorist and have sworn allegiance to Islamic State. His recruits have vowed to commit acts of terror when released, the paper reveals.
One prison official said: “Adebolajo spends most of his waking hours preaching his distorted form of Islam to anyone who will listen. He sees every inmate as a potential Islamic State soldier whether they are Muslims or not.
“He has a big personality and is very charismatic and some of the more vulnerable prisoners will fall under his spell. He is a very dangerous individual.”
The source told The Mirror that Adebolajo sees his role in life to recruit as many Jihadis as possible.
He added: “If he is suspected of trying to radicalise other inmates we step in and move him… But even in prison Adebolajo cannot be watched all the time. We don’t have the staff or the resources.”
Adebolajo was given a whole-life order excluding the possibility of parole, and Adebowale was given a minimum term of 45 years in prison.
In August 2016, a report found that political correctness was to blame for the flourishing of Islamic extremism in prisons, with guards reluctant to confront Muslim inmates for fear of being branded ‘Islamophobic’.
A Muslim and former inmate has also claimed Belmarsh Prison in London was a “jihadi training camp”, and at Leicestershire prison HMP Gartree Muslim extremists are allegedly running an entire block under Sharia law.
The Ministry of Justice confirmed in April that purpose built blocks within high-security prisons to house Islamic extremists away from other inmates would be constructed this summer – the first to be trialled at Frankland Prison.

Why Finsbury Park and London Bridge Are Not Alike

By E.M. Cadwaladr

A few days ago a native of the British Isles, Darren Osborne, drove his truck into a crowd of Muslims near what was once a notoriously radical mosque in the north London suburb of Finsbury Park. The modus operandi of the attack was little different from that of Muslim attacks on native Europeans in Nice, the Christmas Market in Berlin, or, most recently, on London bridge. To be sure, the victims experienced the same horror. The individual tragedies were equally great. And, we can assume, the seething hatred of the perpetrators in all these cases was equally deep -- as was their love for their particular causes. There, however, the equivalency ends.
The first difference one notices between Osborne’s attacks and the others is the character of the press coverage. Immediately after the Finsbury attack, the BBC and other pseudo journalists of the left swarmed the scene to interview the Muslim bystanders. “Do you feel safe?” they asked with virtue-signaling concern. I have watched the monotonous coverage of the now depressingly frequent butchery of Europeans, British, and Americans. Not once have I heard a reporter ask the bystanders or victims of a Jihadist attack -- “Do you feel safe?” Our feelings and our actual safety are of no concern. Middle-class native Europeans and white Americans are expendable. Western journalists delight in weeping over sympathetic, bloody-faced Syrian children, or refugee babies washed up on the island of Lesbos. They don’t show German children, or French children, or English children -- crushed under the wheels of a terrorist’s truck. Neither have they ever shown Israeli babies mutilated in Hamas rocket attacks. There are differences indeed.
However deplorable Darren Osborne’s actions may have been, it seems likely that his motive was essentially to protect his own civilization. Were he a racist, he might as easily driven into a crowd of West Indian blacks, or rammed the store front of a Chinese restaurant. Both of those groups are much more racially different from Mr. Osborne. West Indians and Chinese, however, do not don vests of explosives nor drive trucks into crowds. West Indians and Chinese do not embody a 7th-century ideology that is bent on global conquest, and enshrines that concept as a central feature of its sacred texts. The victims of Islam lie buried from Alexandria, a Christian city lost to Muslim conquerors in 641 A.D., to Vienna, which barely held back the Islamic tide in 1683, to London and San Bernardino today. Islam has never made peace with Western civilization, nor with any other civilization for that matter. It is a death cult which divides the world into two simple spheres: The Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) and the Dar al-Harb (the abode of war). The West subdued this ancient enemy for a hundred and fifty years or so -- which was apparently long enough for our politically correct leaders to erase our history from their memories. We have changed -- Islam has not. The respite is now over.
Jihadists in the West are bent on continuing their interrupted conquests in their own ancient and brutal way. They are not ashamed of saying so -- it is our Western politicians who have steadfastly refused to listen. We have all gotten sick of hearing about the “peaceful Muslim majority.” A tolerant Muslim is, to put it plainly, a Muslim who ignores his own scriptures. To be even plainer, a tolerant Muslim is really not a Muslim at all.
Liberal ecologists talk freely about “invasive species” -- that is, animals deliberately or accidentally imported that gradually displace the native wildlife. Unfortunately, any further application of this concept seems to have eluded the shrunken, inward-looking, leftist mind. When it comes to cultures, leftists live in a multicultural dreamland and utterly refuse to be awakened. They not only invite the invasive species in, they crack down hard on us natives at the slightest hint of protest. Never, in all the history of the world that I am aware of, has any culture been so sickeningly intent on its own suicide as the culture of the West. Our ancestors who stopped the Moors, the Turks, and the Barbary pirates must be outraged in their graves. They have given birth to a generation not merely of sheep -- but of effeminate, self-indulgent lemmings.
What is an Islamophobe? An Islamophobe is a person who has read the Koran, or read history, and is not fond of the option of either converting, being subjugated, or being killed. If Western governments stubbornly refuse to see this, our future will be filled with 7th-century Jihadist butchery -- and more Darren Osbornes who have simply had enough.

WATCH: Radiohead Greeted by Palestinian Flags, Anti-Israel Calls at Glastonbury

Radiohead returned to perform at Glastonbury for the first time in 20 years and were met by members of the crowd waving Palestinian flags and calling for the band to cancel an upcomingshow in Israel.

While some waved Palestinian flags, one banner read: ‘Israel is an apartheid state. Radiohead, don’t play there.’ The anti-Israel action was organized after campaigner Michael Daes used a YouTube interview to call for the crowd to protest.

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Palestinian flag flies in full glory at Glastonbury to protest Radiohead's inglorious performance in Tel Aviv
As Breitbart Jerusalem reported, the opposition to Radiohead peforming in the Jewish State began in April when an open letter signed by a number of performers, as well as by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, was released. It tells the band to “think again” about heading to Tel Aviv and playing in a country  “where a system of apartheid has been imposed on the Palestinian people”.
Among the 47 signatories are Wolf Hall writer Peter Kosminsky, Scottish Mercury Prize-winners Young Fathers and actors Ricky Tomlinson, Miriam Margolyes, Maxine Peake, and Juliet Stevenson.
The letter was organised by Artists For Palestine UK. It follows previous requests by Palestinian activists for Radiohead to pull out of the 19 July concert.
 Radiohead played three shows in Tel Aviv in 1993 when they were still a struggling band with only a single album under their belt.

“Creep,” the most famous song from their debut album, gained wide radio play in Israel and the country was one of the first places outside the UK where the band won recognition.

Why Germany Is Once Again a Threat to the West

By Nikolaas de Jong

In the mainstream media, the policies of the German prime minister, Angela Merkel, are often portrayed as a form of atonement for Germany’s past sins of imperialism and genocide. Letting in a million refugees is supposedly the absolute negation of the Holocaust, and pressing for further European cooperation is seen as the opposite of Germany’s old attempts to violently bring the rest of Europe under its control. And for these very reasons, progressive politicians and intellectuals around the world are now looking up to Merkel as the defender of pluralistic Western values.
At first sight, this praise for Merkel doesn’t seem so far-fetched, even for conservatives who fundamentally oppose her policies. After all, she is acting out of genuine goodwill and charity towards the downtrodden of the Middle East, isn’t she? And we may disagree about the feasibility and consequences of further European integration, but given Europe’s bloody past it seems perfectly understandable that Germany’s prime minister is calling for more harmony among European nations.
Nonetheless, it is important to point out that the popular image both of Angela Merkel and of modern Germany is deeply flawed. Because far from representing a negation -- or a misguided attempt at negation -- of past German policies and attitudes, the modern German mentality is in many ways a mutation or an update of the same mentality that has guided Germany since the eighteenth century, and especially since the unification of the country in 1870.
Let us begin with the more obvious parallel: German support for further European integration. Despite all the German talk about subordinating narrow national interests to the European project, careful observers must have noticed the coincidence that the Germans always see themselves as the leaders of this disinterested project, and that the measures deemed to be necessary for further European cooperation always seem to be German-made.
Are the Germans really such idealistic supporters of the European project? It is more probable that in reality they see the European Union as an ideal instrument to control the rest of Europe. Indeed, in 1997 the British author John Laughland wrote a book about this subject, The Tainted Source: the Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea, which is still worth reading for anyone who wants understand what kind of organization the EU actually is. According to Laughland, the Germans are such big supporters of the European ideal because they know that all important decisions in a confederation of states can ultimately only be taken by or with the approval of the most important state -- in this case, Germany.
Thus, on closer scrutiny, there is a strong continuity between the foreign policy of Wilhelm II, Hitler, and Merkel. And this continuity can easily be explained by looking at Germany’s position within Europe. On the one hand, Germany is the strongest and largest country in Europe, but on the other hand it is not strong or large enough to dominate the rest of Europe automatically. In consequence, ever since German unification in 1870, the country has been presented with the choice either to subordinate its wishes to those of the rest of Europe -- which has always appeared rather humiliating -- or to attempt the conquest of Europe, in order to ensure that Germany’s wishes would always prevail. Unsurprisingly, the Germans have consistently chosen the second course, and both World Wars were attempts to permanently bring the rest of Europe under German control.
The most prominent foreign policy decisions of Merkel can also be interpreted as attempts to expand German dominance in Europe. For instance, during the refugee crisis Germany tried to force Eastern European countries to take in refugees, not only because Merkel wanted to ease the burden upon her own country, but also because it was an ideal way to find out to what extent Germany could impose its will upon the new and independent-minded Eastern European members of the EU. Another example of the new German attempt to dictate policies to the rest of Europe is the Greek banking crisis. Whatever the considerable economic blunders successive Greek governments have committed over the years, it is undeniable that the ultimate goal behind Germany’s harsh demands towards the Greeks was the extension of German economic influence over other EU members.
However, the most frightening thing is that the parallels between Merkel’s mentality and that of her authoritarian predecessors go deeper than mere geopolitics. Because the philosophical premises underlying modern German policies are also at least partly similar to those that motivated Germany in both World Wars.
First of all, Merkel’s ideas about both immigration and European integration have a decidedly utopian character, an echo of the old obsession with the construction of a New World Order, which motivated both Hitler and the German leaders in the First World War. Merkel dreams of a society where immigrants and natives will together build some kind of ideal new world, opposed to the selfishness and materialism that has characterized Western societies until now. Also, Merkel’s attitude has a strong emotionalist undertone, which has been a characteristic of German philosophy since Immanuel Kant. Germans often derided the cold rationalism of the French and the money-grubbing of the Americans and British, as opposed to their own emphasis on the inner workings of the soul, love of the fatherland, and so on. Now, the Germans are reprimanding the governments of other countries, especially America, because they do not seem to share the German optimism about mass immigration, and only seem to care about hard facts.
Another parallel with the old German ideology is the collectivist strain in Merkel’s multicultural project. The German government seems to assume that the rights of German citizens must always be subordinated to those of Third World immigrants, which ultimately simply means that individual rights are subordinated to whatever the state wants. Besides emotionalism, collectivism has also been a prominent characteristic of the German ideology since the eighteenth century, once again in opposition to the “atomic” individualism of classical liberalism that prevailed in the United States, England, and France. When Germans talked about freedom, they did not mean individual freedom in the conventional sense, but rather the good fortune of citizens to live in a country that is efficiently governed by an all-powerful state. This is also what Merkel, and presumably her American and European supporters, mean when they are talking about freedom.
To conclude: far from being the defender of Western values like individual liberty and individual rights, the modern Germany is acting in a very German way indeed. After an adjustment period of some decades following the Second World War, during which the country had to atone for its past misdeeds and keep quiet, Germany is once again trying to impose its rule and a new form of its vicious ideology on Europe and the West. It is of crucial importance that we all recognize Merkel’s policies for what they are, and take decisive action to stop her.