Why a Jewish exodus from Europe is the beginning of the end of our civilisation

ADMIT it. Like me, you’re prejudiced. In my case I call it ‘detestophobia’ – a visceral loathing of those who hate others, simply based on their creed, colour or religion.

So what’s yours? People of Afro origin, wily Oriental gentlemen – from whom we supposedly derived the odious acronym WOG – or that enduring favourite, the Jews?

All discrimination is irrational, but some hatreds are beyond absurd, like a woman I once met with a prejudice against redheads, since she believed it a trademark of Celtic ancestry and she loathed the Irish.

At the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Museum of Tolerance, in Los Angeles, it’s assumed everyone harbours bigotry by degrees; it’s just a matter of pricking consciences to out it.

After a brief welcome – and before inviting visitors to enter through one of two doors – the guide says, ‘Search your hearts and honestly pick whichever best identifies you.’

Above one door is a sign marked: ‘Prejudiced’; above the other is one beckoning the ‘Unprejudiced’.

After an uneasy pause for reflection, visitors unanimously elect the door marked ‘Prejudiced’. It’s as well they do, because the portal marked ‘Unprejudiced’ is locked.

Named in honour of the legendary Nazi hunter, the centre’s mission is to generate change through education by not only confronting the scourge of anti-Semitism – the world’s oldest hatred – but all forms of prejudice, while promoting human rights and dignity for all.

VISION OF EVIL: 'If we had no Jews we'd have to invent them', said Hitler

VISION OF EVIL: ‘If Jews didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them’, said Hitler

It’s a noble, praiseworthy aim. But 70 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the death camp where millions of Jews perished – alongside homosexuals, opponents of the Nazis, the mentally and physically disabled, and others branded as subhuman ‘untermenschen’ – the Wiesenthal Centre’s challenge for mankind to confront horrors its racism unleashed is being ignored, forgotten or defied.

The exhortation ‘Never again’ is being replaced by ‘Whenever again’, nowhere more so than in Europe, cradle of the Enlightenment yet crucible of persecution and intolerance.

And, once again, Jews are at the forefront of loathing, almost to the extent that anti-Semitism is trendy, whether it emanates from the malevolent Left or the putrid far-Right.

For two millennia Jews bobbed like corks on the tide of societies wherever they chanced to settle, their existence an ongoing litmus test of how civilised a civilisation purported to be.

Few, if any, European nations can take historical pride in how they treated their Jewish citizens, irrespective of the huge contributions Jews made to all aspects of the fabric of their societies – from culture, commerce and science to political philosophy, philanthropy and inter-faith cohesion.

Yet, they have never ceased to be less than handy scapegoats to divert the masses attention away from the real causes of their misery – greedy, ruthless, oppressive overlords.

As Hitler noted, ‘If the Jews didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them.’

Inexplicably, in defiance of the lessons of history, anti-Semitism never entirely disappears, but morphs into contemporary formats.

Today the existence of Israel is a neat overlay on the vile, old tapestry of Jew hatred, since it can be sanitised as ‘anti-Zionism’ and the Jewish people’s ancient right to a state can be twisted into a vindictive denial that an historical wrong should be righted.

This is a particular hobbyhorse of the Left, who, rather than praise the only flourishing democracy in the cauldron of Middle East hate, revile it for having the temerity to succeed.

Instead, squaring this circle of lunacy, holier-than-thou, pseudo-liberals regard as a cause célèbre murderous terrorists, who slaughter political opponents, persecute Christians, execute homosexuals and denigrate women in the name of a 7th Century credo.

Such hypocrisy was repellently evident in BBC reporter Tim Willcox’s interview with the daughter of Holocaust survivors during the memorial march in Paris two weeks ago, commemorating the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the slaying by an Islamo-fanatic of four Jews in a kosher supermarket.

Standing with her Muslim friend, the woman reflected on how afraid French Jews felt, noting, ‘The situation is going back to the days of the 1930s in Europe.’

Willcox replied crassly, ‘Many critics of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.’

BIASED BROADCASTER: The BBC's Tim Willcox incensed viewers with his crass comments during the Charlie Hebdo commemorations in Paris

WILLCOX COCKS UP: The BBC’s Tim Willcox incensed viewers over his crass comments to a Jewish woman during the Charlie Hebdo commemorations

Conflating the Israel-Arab conflict with the murders of French Jews in France was just the sort of inane slur that features all too often in radical Left media, of which BBC News is a leading light.

And, after a wave of condemnation, Willcox’s lame, Tweeted apology – ‘Really sorry for any offence caused by a poorly phrased question…it was entirely unintentional’ – cut little ice with incensed viewers, since he is no stranger to similar controversy.

Many well remember, last November, a BBC News 24 debate when political guru Jo Phillips suggested to him that UK Labour leader, Ed Miliband, was losing the support of that well-worn racist canard, the so-called ‘Jewish lobby’.

Far from condemning her inflammatory remark, Willcox added tinder to the flames, saying, ‘And a lot of these prominent Jewish faces will be very much against the mansion tax (one of Labour’s promises if it wins the May 7 UK General Election).’

If similar sentiments had been aired against Muslims, I’d imagine Willcox would probably be job-seeking.

At best, though, the hideous events of Paris awakened a consciousness that Jews are still a barometer of how civilised is an entity that professes itself a civilisation.

Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister of France – which has a long and dishonourable record for its treatment of Jews – insisted the country needs to protect its 500,000-strong Jewish community, ‘lest France itself be destroyed.’

But, with synagogues, Jewish schools and institutions now guarded 24/7 by the military, it is a damning indictment of a nation whose motto is ‘Liberty, equality and fraternity.’ Small wonder Jews are leaving France in droves.

ANTI ANTI-SEMITISM: Theresa May, the UK interior minister, joins the outrage against the rise of Jew hatred across Europe

ANTI ANTI-SEMITISM: Theresa May, the UK interior minister, joins the outrage against the rise of Jew hatred across Europe

Uber-liberal Sweden – where Jews fear displaying any outward sign of their faith, like a skullcap or Star of David – is little better, as are other European nations with open-door immigration policies.

In Britain, anti-Semitic attacks trebled in 2014, prompting Interior Minister, Theresa May to lament, ‘I never thought I would see the day when members of the Jewish community would say they were fearful of remaining here.’

But, arguably the most telling comment came from Frans Timmermans, vice president of the European Commission, who recalled that mistreatment of Jews had always been a harbinger of ‘trouble ahead for European societies.’

What is lost in the hand-wringing is, one way or another, the Jews are not alone as a minority, because, one way or another, we all are members of one – even if it boils down to having ginger hair.

Which is why I recall the words of anti-Nazi German theologian and concentration camp internee, Pastor Martin Niemöller, who noted, ‘First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.’

Silence isn’t so golden if we’re driven to keep our mouths shut out of fear

THE other day an email arrived in my inbox, accusing me of being a ‘neo-con’.

I’ve been called far worse and really didn’t take it as the insult intended, largely because the missive spewed such far-Left drivel, it might have been lifted from the Socialist Workers Party’s hymn sheet.

Just for the record, the sender ended by advising me to ‘keep your neo-con views to yourself.’

‘Nuff said. Except the post slated by whoever hides behind the nom de plume, DemoFan, was my call for Britain’s politicos to emphasise the positive side of immigration and stop playing the UK Independence Party at its favourite game.

By any measure my piece was ‘neo-lib’, perhaps a reprise from my days as a Gucci socialist (failed) and hardly ‘neo-con’, an Americanism that came to prominence as a barb aimed at President G. ‘Dubya’ Bush’s cronies.

But what got my goat was being told to shut up by someone, I guess, who’d take to the barricades at the drop of a Stop The War Coalition hint or an invite to a CND jamboree in Trafalgar Square, if, indeed, there are still enough members left in it to fill the fountain.

LET HIM SPOUT: So-called hate preachers, like Andjem Choudary,  should be given air time to condemn themselves from their own mouths

LET HIM SPOUT: So-called hate preachers, like Andjem Choudary, should be given air time to condemn themselves from their own mouths

Clearly, DemoFan’s versions of democracy’s saintliest virtue, the freedom of speech, is that it was okay to say what you liked, so long as its mantra echoed his. And any philosophy falling short of that is taboo, fascist or – as in my case – ‘neo-con’.

Yet, if I were to categorise myself it would be as a ‘free-thinker’, hidebound by politically correct rules imposed on Western society by the real fascists: a hardline, censorious liberal elite who have strangled public debate in ways more reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984 vision of Big Brother’s Thought Police.

That notion occurred last week when I read a YouGov survey, which reported that 41% of Brits don’t feel free to air their opinions and that Britain, home to the Mother of Parliaments, has developed a ‘culture of silence’.

Of course, I realise that stat includes headbangers who believe Hitler should be beatified as St. Adolf, others on a day out from the funny farm and a few, token Flat Earthers. But it also encompasses many with mainstream opinions on techy topics, such as immigration, religion, ethics and their political preferences (admittedly, it takes some guts to fess up to voting Lib-Dem nowadays).

For the record, the poll also said 40% felt they could sound off at will and 17%, who reckon there’s too much freedom anyway.

Nonetheless, in a so-called free society, it’s worrisome that two out of five citizens keep their thoughts to themselves out of a dread they may hurt someone’s feelings, perhaps prompt a Twitterstorm and get their Facebook page trolled.

The largest proportion of the self-censored (38%) said they feared speaking up in case they uttered something illegal, while 28% stayed silent because they couldn’t stomach criticism. A further 10% thought airing their ideas might damage their careers prospects.

However, of all those polled, an overwhelming majority (77%) agreed on one point: too much protection is given by officialdom and the media to religious believers from ideas and arguments which might offend them.

In its summary of the survey, the New Culture Forum, which commissioned it, pointed a particularly scathing finger at universities, where it claimed free speech ‘is carefully monitored, not by the state or the campus administration, but by the students.’

It added, ‘Student unions now see the mental wellbeing of the student body as a reason to ban anything from a pop song to a reading group.’

ON THE LEASH: The report rapped students' unions for the control they exercise on campuses

FREEDOM TO SPEAK? The report rapped students’ unions for the ‘mind’ control they exercise on campuses

Since today’s generation of undergrads – many of whom love nothing better than a juicy demo and a chance to kick those fascist lackeys, the police – will deliver tomorrow’s leaders, I can only surmise more Big Brothers are rolling off the production line.

So, while we quite rightly have laws banning hate speech and incitement to racism, we’re in danger of stifling legitimate argument, not because it might cause actual bodily harm, but because someone, somewhere might be offended.

Britain once had a proud tradition of allowing people to speak their minds, often a shrewd ruse to suss out the real odium peddlers, who’d damn themselves from their own mouths.

But when the BBC announced that British National Party leader, Nick Griffin – a real, live neo-Nazi – was to appear on its flagship political forum, Question Time, a tidalwave of outrage nearly quashed the broadcast.

To their credit, the Beeb bravely stuck to its script, the BNP nasty duly appeared and got the pillorying his despicable views richly deserved.

That example is one of the exceptions rather than the rule, because invariably received wisdom is to gag debate, which is Home Secretary Theresa May’s policy, as she seeks to ban extremists from TV, like the so-called hate preacher Anjem Choudary.

I’d say: bring them on and let’s hear their obnoxious ravings, so we’re all aware of what degree of danger they pose.

The Establishment, though, doesn’t subscribe to the view people are capable of making up their own minds, so silence is foisted on them.

PUBLISHED & DAMNED: Instead of defending Salmon Rushdie from a death sentence fatwa, Britain's Establishment attacked the writer

PUBLISHED & DAMNED: Instead of defending Salmon Rushdie from a death sentence fatwa, Britain’s Establishment attacked the writer

Such was the case when Salmon Rushdie’s Satanic Verses hit the bookshelves in 1988, provoking a fatwa death sentence from Iran’s then Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. Yet, instead condemning a gross and medieval assault on a long-prized Western freedom, the great and good cravenly attacked Rushdie.

Nor did the fabled, fearless British Press cover itself in glory, when not a single Fleet Street newspaper dared reproduce the ‘Mohammed Cartoons’, after an obscure Danish daily sparked worldwide debate on whether founders of the great religions could be satirised.

Yet, when a ComRes poll early last year asked what freedom people prized most, freedom of speech topped the list by a country mile.

Clearly, the public subscribed to the notion, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ – a quote wrongly attributed to Voltaire and actually the words of his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall – and that is a plucky and noble sentiment.

More’s the pity, then, the Establishment is too cowardly to share it.

Why Labour’s Israel-bashing obsession batters Britain’s influence on the peace process

ONCE it was the far Right – a nasty rash of neo-Nazis, xenophobes and assorted morons with a racist grudge – plus rabid Arabists, who drove the anti-Israel agenda, especially when it provided a handy cloak to hide their anti-Semitism.

Of course, this motley horror show still manages to occasionally emerge from beneath its rock. But much of its Israel-bashing thunder has been hijacked by the hard Left, many of whom harbour an unhealthy obsession with demonising the only state in the madhouse of the Middle East where democratic sanity prevails.

Naturally, Israel is far from perfect. No multicultural, free society is, especially Britain’s.

And I, too, have issues with elements inside Israel’s present government, especially the Settler Movement, just as I have with certain members of the UK’s ruling coalition and, most certainly, the current US President.

However, I don’t blame Israel as a nation for the policies of some at its helm and I have only admiration for what its eight million citizens – including nearly two million Muslims, Druze and Christians – have accomplished, set against a backdrop of an unremitting, 66-year conflict they never sought.

MOTION MAN: Fist-waving MP, Grahame Morris, who compared Israel to the Nazi, was behind Labour's pro-Palestine Commons motion

MOTION MAN: Fist-waving Grahame Morris, who compared Israel to the Nazis, was the British MP behind Labour’s pro-Palestine Commons motion

Indeed, far from being the target of bloodlusting venom from its 350 million neighbours, the Jewish state offers them an object lesson in creativity, scientific achievement that includes a cure for Ebola, intellectual thought and justice.

Can you imagine, for instance, a Jewish judge in, say, Egypt, Syria or Iraq – where once-vibrant Jewish communities flourished long before the notion of Islam occurred to Mohammed – sending a Muslim leader to jail, as an Arab judge did in Israel, when he found former president, Moshe Katsav, guilty of rape.

This and innumerable, everyday instances of equality being exercised across all stratas of Israeli society, regardless of gender and sexuality, kill stone dead the odious lie of an ‘apartheid’ state. In fact, the majority of Arabs agree they enjoy more freedoms and benefits as Israeli citizens than they would in Muslim states and I see no queue of them at the border, lining up to become subjects of Palestine.

So those (mainly Labour) MPs, who aired the ‘apartheid’ slander – along with a compendium of slurs bordering on racism, like allusions to an all-pervasive ‘Jewish Lobby’ – in last Monday’s House of Commons debate on UK recognition of a Palestine state were talking unmitigated hogwash.

Sadly, all too many are gullible dupes, swallowing hook, line and stinker the deceits of the Palestinians’ devious PR machine.

Unsurprisingly, then, they parroted its mantra of ‘illegal settlements’, ‘atrocities in Gaza’ and ‘occupation’, with nary one addressing the theme of Arab intransigence in the peace processes – not to mention the countless times Yasser Arafat was offered and refused a viable state – or Hamas’s pledge to destroy Israel and world Jewry with it.

And, such is their appalling ignorance of Middle East history, not a voice from Ed Miliband’s Party of Togetherness mentioned Israel’s land-for-peace swaps with Egypt and Jordan or how these Arab nations purloined all that was meant to be Palestine – had the Arabs accepted UN partition in 1948 – until they waged and lost the 1967 Six Day War.

Meanwhile, even a smattering of Tories joined in the verbal onslaught, most notably Sir Alan Duncan, the former International Development Minister, who used UK taxpayers’ cash to help pay salaries, circa £2,000 a month, to Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails.

The small, but perfectly-formed hypocrite, who made millions from serving Arab oil interests, assumed the ‘moral high ground’ to back the motion, perhaps forgetting morality isn’t necessarily his forte.

Named and shamed in the MPs expenses scandal for claiming thousands to manicure his lawn – which, by his own admission, ‘could be considered excessive’ – even his property dealings have sometimes been, at best, iffy.

IN A MORAL MAZE: Ex-UK Aid Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was one of few Tories to back the pro-Palestine motion

IN A MORAL MAZE: Ex-UK International Development Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was one of few Conservatives to back the pro-Palestine motion

Apart from having to explain his rather ‘complex’ mortgage arrangements, it emerged that in 1992 Duncan lent an elderly next-door neighbour money to buy his 18th Century, Westminster council house under right-to-buy legislation.

The neighbour duly did so at a significant discount and sold it to…er, Alan Duncan.

But the motion – ‘This House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel’ and later amended to include ‘as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution’ – was a wholly Labour stunt and boycotted by the vast majority of Conservatives.

Proposed by Grahame Morris, who recently compared Israel to the Nazis, it passed with a predictable, overwhelming majority: 247 for, 12 against.

Basic arithmetic attest to the fact that of Britain’s 650 MPs, less than half attended the debate. And, regardless of the result, it was a shoddy gesture, non-binding on Prime Minister David Cameron, who is icily clear that only a negotiated, bilateral agreement can solve the Middle East’s most intractable dispute.

There is no denying, however, it was a hugely symbolic vote and a warning to Israel of perils to come, should Red Ed’s socialists win a majority in next May’s UK General Election.

BRITAIN'S GUILT: The UK shut the door to escape for millions of Holocaust victims, by barring them for Mandate Palestine

BRITAIN’S GUILT: The UK shut the door to escape for millions of Holocaust victims like these, by barring them from entering Mandate Palestine

But the Israelis are no strangers to British perfidy, because – bar the Balfour Declaration favouring a Jewish state in the Levant after World War One – the UK pursued a cynical, anti-Jewish/pro-Arab agenda from the 1920s onward under its League of Nations Mandate.

In fact, from a moral perspective, Britain’s actions in shutting the door to escape for millions of future victims of Hitler’s Holocaust before and during the World War Two, as well as callously preventing survivors from reaching Palestine until its Mandate ended in 1948, deserves opprobrium.

Ditto the Commons’ motion.

Shot full by ambiguity, it referred to ‘recognition of a Palestine state’ that doesn’t exist, lacks defined borders and whose racist leadership adamantly refuses to recognise its Jewish neighbour.

And, regardless of the latest sham of unity between Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah administration in Ramallah and Hamas’s Islamo-fascist terrorists – one already fraying at the seams – which bipolar entity does the motion recognise: the West Bank Palestine or the Gaza Palestine?

Meanwhile, though such showboating plays well to Labour’s vocal Muslim vote, far from advancing Britain’s influence in the peace process, the Israel-bashing Commons motion leaves an enormous dent in the UK’s credentials as an honest broker.

Memo to Bardem and Cruz: Sound off when you really know what you’re talking about

IN her ignorance, Penelope Cruz probably best summed up a tranche of addled opinion of the latest Israel-Hamas war, admitting in a letter to USA Today, ‘I’m not an expert on the situation and I’m aware of the complexity of it.’

This mea culpa was a backtrack on an earlier, incendiary ‘open letter’ she’d co-signed – along with a host of other right-on, Spanish showbiz luvvies – written by her actor husband, Javier Bardem, which essentially laid the entire blame for the fighting on Israel and lambasted Europe for ‘allowing genocide to happen.’

Renowned for his fiery radicalism, Bardem damned the conflict as ‘a war of occupation and extermination against a people without means, confined to a minimum of land, without water and where hospitals, ambulances and children are targets and alleged terrorists.’

Without understating the unimaginable horrors suffered by Gaza’s innocents, the actor’s sanctimonious rant was as misguided as the countless Hamas missiles that annihilated their own people and a shameful distortion of reality, while wilfully flouting facts.

Why, for instance, didn’t Bardem mention nearly 3,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilians, deliberately intended to incite retaliation; the millions of dollars of Israeli-supplied cement, electricity and water meant for civilian purposes, but diverted to construct a labyrinth of terror tunnels; Hamas using civilians – even reporters – as human shields and hospitals as HQs; ambulances hijacked to ferry fighters and missiles launchers; or that there’s nothing ‘alleged’ about Hamas being a gang of homicidal terrorists, because the UN, US and the EU long ago judged them so?

NO CRUZ CONTROL? Spanish actress, Penelope Cruz, and her husband, Javier Bardem, tried to backtrack over their Gaza 'genocide' accusation

NO CRUZ CONTROL? Spanish actress, Penelope Cruz, and her husband, Javier Bardem, tried to backtrack over their Gaza ‘genocide’ accusation against Israel

At least, the gobby thespian fell short of seconding Spanish writer, Antonio Gala’s viciously anti-Semitic tirade in El Mundo, reprising the 1492 expulsions by proposing Spain’s 50,000 Jews be kicked out, since ‘it is though they were not made to co-exist’.

Gala’s rabid racism, though, is not unusual in a nation of forty-five million, with an inglorious history for persecuting minorities, particularly Jews.

In a 2008 survey by the independent Pew Research Centre on global attitudes to anti-Semitism, Spain saw the worst and highest recorded rise in Europe, where the study reported unfavourable views of Jews had doubled from 21% in 2005 to 46% among Spaniards.

According to Pew, only 37% of the Spanish viewed Jews favourably, in contrast to 50% in Poland, 64% in Germany and 73% in Britain.

A later poll by Spain’s Education Ministry stoked further consternation, revealing more than 50% of students between 12 and 18 said they would not want to sit next to a Jew in class.

The level of Spanish anti-Semitism was abetted by the then far-Left prime minister, Jose Luis Zapatero, sporting a Yasser Arafat-style scarf and regularly attacking Israel at pro-Palestinian events, which usually descend into vitriolic Jew-bashing.

Zapatero was also reported to have stated that he ‘understood the Nazis’ when it came to ‘the Jewish question.’

But, while Zapatero ignored protests from angry US legislators, Bardem’s inflammatory bombast has provoked worldwide outrage, not least from fellow Oscar winner, Jon Voigt, who accused the Spaniard of ‘stupidity’ and fanning the flames of anti-Semitism.

Using the platform of the Hollywood Reporter, he provide Bardem, Cruz & Co with a history lesson about Arab attacks on Israel since 1948 ‘when the country was created through the United Nations, including the 1967 and 1973 wars. And when Israel was not fighting a major war, it was defending itself against terrorist campaigns.’

Voigt, a non-Jew and father of Angelina Jolie, called on the purblind celebs who signed ‘that poison letter against Israel’ to ‘examine their motives’, adding, ‘Can you take back the fire of anti-Semitism raging all over the world now?’

And, for extra measure, he reminded them, ‘You had a great responsibility to use your celebrity for good. Instead, you have defamed the only democratic country of goodwill in the Middle East: Israel.’

Days later, then, Bardem followed his semi-repentant wife in performing verbal acrobatics, saying he regretted using the word ‘genocide’, claiming his diatribe was only directed at Israel’s government and military.

‘I have great respect for the people of Israel and deep compassion for their losses,’ he added, hoping to wipe the plate clean of slurs.

SPAIN'S SHAME: Zapatero - in a 'terrorist chic' scarf - presided over a country with Europe's highest level of anti-Semitism

SPAIN’S SHAME: Zapatero – in a ‘terrorist chic’ scarf – presided over a country with Europe’s highest level of anti-Semitism

At least it dawned on him to withdraw any allusion to ‘genocide’, a highly emotive and abused term that – quoting Chambers dictionary – specifically refers to ‘the deliberate extermination of a racial, national, religious or ethnic group.

Nothing diminishes the carnage of Gaza… lifeless children, weeping parents, buildings reduced to rubble. But, despite Hamas’s unverified claims of 1,875 deaths – 430 of whom they said were under 15 – it was not a genocide.

Meanwhile, the terror group’s arithmetic is being contested by Israel and independent arbitrators, whose initial estimate states at least 900 Hamas fighters perished in Operation Protective Edge.

So onlookers shooting from the lip, while ignoring – or, in the case of Cruz, being ignorant of – salient facts make a mockery of their own, ill-informed opinions.

As the fog of war temporarily cleared during a 72-hour truce broken – again! – by Hamas, other, too, might be rueing their rush to judgement, including the Obama administration.

Last week the State Department’s kneejerk reaction to an Israeli attack on a rocket launcher, said to have killed 10 in a UN school, was to brand it ‘disgraceful’.

New evidence, backed by photos, strongly points to the missile strike hitting the road outside, where a crater is plainly evident, and that dead bodies were moved into the school by Hamas – with the corpse of a small girl added to hype the PR impact.

After the two, previous Hamas-Israel wars, it should be patently obvious to sensible, fair-minded folk that there are no depths to the terror gang’s skulduggery.

Even Judge Richard Goldstone was forced to retract the ‘findings’ of his notorious report on the 2009 conflict, admitting later, ‘If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.’

However, the blinkered Left – and its dimwit celeb cheerleaders – only see and hear what they want to, blurring fallacy into ‘fact’.

BARDEM BASHER: Oscar winner, Jon Voigt, trashed the Spanish star and his actress wife for '

BARDEM BASHER: Oscar winner, Jon Voigt, trashed the Spanish star and his actress wife for their ‘poison-pen letter against Israel’

And their abiding, pathological, obsessive prejudice against Israel now openly spills over into old-fashioned Jew-hatred, as forests of placards spelt out so unambiguously in so-called ‘peace marches’  across Europe during recent weeks that morphed into attacks on innocent Jews.

Bizarrely, I find it implausible how the Left’s saintly bigots can defend Islamo-fascists, like Hamas, whose cherished wish is to slaughter Christians, Jews and gays, subjugate women and refashion the world according to a loony, 7th Century religious dogma.

Also, I have to wonder why these self-styled do-gooders, wrapped in their ‘terrorist chic’, keffir scarfs, don’t give a hoot about Christians crucified in ISIS’s new ‘caliphate’ across Iraq and Syria – or Yazidis facing genuine genocide – Russia grabbing a huge chunk of Ukraine, China murdering Tibetans wholesale or Iran persecuting opponents of its crackpot regime.

If they do, then where are the demos?

And, lest I forget the useful-idiot apologists for Islamic savagery – Jimmy Carter, Paddy Ashdown and Baroness Warsi take note – forever claiming Israel’s defence of its citizenry only serves as a recruiting sergeant for Muslim extremism, the simple answer is: it doesn’t, as history is my witness.

Maybe they should share their judgemental folly with relatives of the victims of 9/11 (2001), the Madrid bombings (2004), 7/7 (2005) and the countless other terror outrages to see how their inanity is viewed.

So, yes, certainly protest the hideous death toll in Gaza, but, instead of continually castigating Israel, point an accusing finger at who’s really to blame – Hamas.

Whatever ‘British values’ are, there’s no room on the list for extremism

DAVID Cameron has had a stab at defining them. So have throngs of media luminaries, from sanctimonious liberals to hard-nosed Right-wingers.

Yet, to my mind, no-one has yet nailed a concise explanation of what are loftily describe as ‘British values’, even if we know – instinctively – the answer, since they’ve been inculcated in us since we were toddling around in soggy nappies.

The issue has become the subject of fierce debate, after allegations emerged of a ‘Trojan Horse’ plot by Muslim radicals to hijack control of a group of state schools in Birmingham and transform them into virtual Islamic madrassas.

After an Ofsted investigation, Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of the UK Government’s education watchdog, delivered a withering verdict that an ‘organised campaign’ had targeted certain academies to impose a ‘narrow, faith-based ideology’, with the same people ‘highly influential across several schools’.

A ‘culture of fear and intimidation’ had developed, he said, with ‘head teachers, including those with a proud record of raising standards… marginalised or forced out of their jobs’.

Wilshaw’s report examined many charges, including girls forced to sit at the back of classrooms, music ditched from the curriculum, an extremist, al-Qaeda sympathiser invited to preach at kids and state funds diverted to subsidise trips to Saudi Arabia.

WATCHDOG BITES: Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of the UK's schools inspectorate, Ofsted, found a culture of 'fear and intimidation' in some schools

WATCHDOG BITES: Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of the UK’s schools inspectorate, Ofsted, found a culture of ‘fear and intimidation’ in some schools

Based on ancient Greek legend, the ‘Trojan Horse plot’ reportedly came from a leaked letter discovered in March, 2014, alleging Islamists in Britain’s second city sought to wrest control of schools and expand their warped agenda elsewhere.

Hence, a scab of local controversy erupted into a festering cyst of national dispute, with the nation’s core principles placed under a philosophical microscope and a UK prime minister minded to outline what he regards as Britishness and British values.

Cameron cited the Union flag, football and fish and chips as symbolic, but none cut to the quick of why we are who we are.

He also harked back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and the first time an English monarch’s absolute powers were curbed by law. This, though, was hardly a people’s revolt, since it merely forced bad King John to bow to will of his feudal barons and it improved the plight of long-suffering serfs not a jot.

What Magna Carta did, though, was to kick-start the process by which English common law evolved to what exists today, whereby every citizen, regardless of rank, gender or ethnicity, has the right to liberty and justice. Small wonder, then, it has been the template for countless other nations to copy.

So, certainly the law – dispensed by an independent judiciary – is valued, yet it’s not a value; neither is a parliamentary democracy, a constitutional monarchy, a moderate church, a vibrant Press and a culture of free enterprise.

Taking a millennia to develop, these pillars of the British Establishment are certainly entwined in the national psyche, but they are the products of values so abstract, they almost defy simple definition.

To hazard a guess at a few, though, I’d cite respect for freedom, justice and stoicism, that ability to withstand adversity without become hysterical.

That may partly explain the British virtue of tolerance. Because, even if some Brits are head-banging racists, collectively as a nation we possess a deep sense of fair play, which is why Shakespeare’s Sceptred Isle became a land of hope, salvation and opportunity for waves of immigrants, many escaping repression.

RACISM 1950s-STYLE: A typical sign in many boarding house windows

RACISM 1950s-STYLE: A typical sign in many British  boarding house windows

From the persecuted Protestant Huguenots arriving from 16th Century France – ironically ancestors of UKIP’s Nigel Farage – via the Irish navvies, who built Britain’s canals and railways in the Industrial Revolution, to Jewish migrants fleeing czarist pogroms at the turn of the 20th Century…all came and became infused with British values, each adding to the nation’s vitality.

Post World War Two, West Indians arrived to man the trains, buses and NHS, while Asians were recruited to work in the North’s fabric mills.

But integration was never easy for immigrants, because many faced walls of prejudice, manifested by anti-Semitism, xenophobia and a colour bar. Remember: it wasn’t so long ago a common sight in boardinghouse windows were signs, stating, ‘No Irish, no blacks & no dogs’.

However, there was a tacit acceptance among incomers that their adopted nation’s proud traditions and values – no matter how obscure – deserved respect and that reverence was passed on to their children.

So the country really didn’t need synthetic words like ‘multiculturalism’ foisted on it, because Britain melded into a rainbow society, which mostly succeeded…so long as everyone stuck to the script.

Neither did it require the zealous Left to force-feed the masses a dogma of political correctness, as prescribed by an arrogant, metropolitan elite, isolated from harsh reality in London’s ritzier suburbs.

But, mainly north of Watford, something was going radically awry and, instead of barriers breaking down, they were being raised, as folk witnessed irrevocable changes in their towns and cities that tested tolerance to the full.

Among some Muslim communities a hardline Islamist ideology – one denigrating the very ethos of Britishness – was being imposed that silenced the voices of the moderate majority.

Sadly, then, it has become easier to define what isn’t a British value than what is.

It is not, for example, forced marriage, the taking of child brides or the subjugation of women; it is not hostility towards other faiths or the supremacy of one; it is not discrimination against gays; it is not the encouraging of impressionable young men to destroy the society that nurtured them; it is not extremism in any of its various manifestations.

Muslim have as much right to freely practice their faith and culture in Britain as anyone and they should do so without fear or favour.

But, like all who take pride in their Britishness, warts and all, it should be understood that the very British value of mutual tolerance must triumph if Britain is to have any values left.