It hasn’t taken too long to see appeasement rhetoric emerge from new British PM, David Cameron. On his recent trip to Turkey, Cameron was effusive to his hosts and aggressively critical of Israel. Melanie Phillips bemoans the sorry state Britain is being lowered to here.
As Phillips says “Israel is the litmus test of decency in political discourse. Those who attack Israel are invariably on the wrong side of the global fight to defend civilisation against its destroyers. Not just because of Israel’s place on the geopolitical map. It is because the animus against Israel is based on a wholesale repudiation of reason and the embrace instead of irrationality, bigotry, lies and moral inversion. Defence becomes attack, victim becomes victimiser, right becomes wrong; and vice versa. It is the deranged discourse of Islamic fanaticism and of the Israel-bashing left that marches beneath its black banners. And now it is Cameron’s discourse too. 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 Britain was “the junior partner [to America] in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.” In 1940, of course, America had not yet even entered the war and Britain alone held fascism at bay. So how could Cameron have said something so unbelievably ignorant? Can he really be that stupid?”
Daphne Anson also analyzes Cameron’s actions and finds them wanting. She writes “David Cameron is not a Conservative. He is a smooth unprincipled opportunist, and, moreover, one who appears to bear the impression of the last man to sit upon him.”
Robin Shepherd is equally critical when he writes of Cameron’s comments:
“The kindest explanation is that he is simply being careless and on reflection would probably have wanted to add that Israel is of course entitled to be careful about which Gazans it lets into Israel. But careless talk costs lives and Cameron or his advisers should be aware that it is precisely because they want the option of sending waves of suicide bombers into Israel that Hamas has been so vocal in calling for its people to be allowed into Israel without restriction.
A harsher explanation of what is at work here is that Cameron has constructed his political personality around a desire to be seen as the kind of Conservative who is palatable to “progressive” opinion — a desire which has been redoubled by joining the Left-leaning Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government.
For the purposes of this discussion, this means going soft on terrorism, going quiet on Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and, of course joining forces with the great global campaign of deligitimisation of the State of Israel. Hence the Gaza as a “prison camp” rhetoric and hence the absence of any reference whatsoever to Hamas’s terroristic ambitions or its vile anti-Semitism.”
Sad, really. However, is it overly optimistic to hope that, since it is still early in his prime ministership, things may yet improve? A cynical view would be that President Obama is outsourcing the critique of Israel to Cameron, for this period prior to the US elections.