Fair point about Chesler. She did seem to take a fair amount of prodding though. Her initial response (which refers to Lionheart’s pro-BNP comments) was very interesting:

“I myself no longer demand purity or conformity in my political alliances. I think we are at war and we must make alliances with people with whom we may not agree on every issue. However, others believe that there are some people who, no matter what, are “off-limits” where civilized political and military alliances are concerned.”
http://tinyurl.com/c93tv2

(She doesn’t seem to have done herself any favours in that the later response you refer to is gone and doesn’t seem to be archived anywhere.)
This is reminiscent of the language coming from people like Christine Brim:

“We suggest looking for the possible movement of Le Pen’s political party Front National towards the center-right, as they may change their platform to pro-active support to improve the situations of European Jews and Israel. The same trend is happening in Austria, and with the BNP in the UK (also not invited and did not attend the conference). If such parties specifically state pro-Israel positions, and take real actions opposing anti-semitism and disavowing previous positions – and reach out to Jewish constituents and encourage Jewish participation in party positions – these are real actions to observe, and to approve. They have not done this yet – but are starting.”
http://tinyurl.com/7lshda

The IPS and RUSI articles above are good on the rapprochement between some neoconservatives and the European far right which is reflected in organisations like CounterJihad Europa and the International Free Press Society.

It seems that concerns about ‘Islamofascists’ don’t necessarily extend to actual European fascists.

This is arguably consistent with a ‘political warfare’ ethos:

“Some Western conservatives will oppose aid to labor and socialist groups, while more liberal politicians and their staffs will oppose aid to conservative intellectual, media, and business groups. These are political obstacles that potential sponsors will have to overcome if they are looking for geostrategic advantages.” (Roy Godson, Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards, p.151.)

Tom,

I’m not sure of the date of the Spectator comment. It’s from the Policy Forum website, which seems to have gone down in the past few days. There’s a google cached version here: http://tinyurl.com/cvnscc

In case you forgot, the whole spat was about who on the liberal-left supported liberal/progressive Muslims, not who supported the fundamentalist types. So if the Anjem Choudhary crew are dismissive, that means we’re doing something right.

http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/conservatives-ditch-lionheart/

And David Yerushalmi is off the wall:

http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/worldnetdaily-puffs-anti-shariah-project/

Was this still in 2004? The editor of the Spectator at that point being one B. Johnson, esq., later much championed and assisted into office by Policy Exchange, Cohen, Gilligan, Lynton Crosby etc. Now, however, Boris not having worked out as a neocon stooge, they’re busily trying to gee up an acceptable Labour Mayoral candidate for 2012. Sir Alan Sugar, for instance. The key thing about these bastards is that they’re avowedly post-political party people, but I’d still like to know what the hell they’re doing and why.

Sunder Katwala Fabian Society; Navid Akhtar; Fareena Alam, Fuad Nahdi Radical Middle Way; Yasmin Alibhai-Brown; Anthony Barnett Convention for Modern Liberty; Farmida Bi Progressive British Muslims; Yahya Birt, Usama Hasan, Asim Siddiqui City Circle; Rachel Briggs; Tony Curzon-Price openDemocracy; Sunny Hundal Liberal Conspiracy; Dilwar Hussain Policy Research Centre; James MacIntyre New Statesman; Dr Nasar Meer, Prof Tariq Modood Bristol University; Peter Oborne; Ed Owen; Chuka Umunna Labour ppc for Streatham; Stuart Weir Democratic Audit

Alliances die when they win. Take away the enemy, and you take away the glue that holds a coalition together.

[...]

Yet instead of taking its final bow, NATO expanded. In 1994, the alliance sent out invitations to the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland; five years later, all three were in. Sixty years ago, NATO started out with 12 members; today it has 26. Not bad for an outfit that, according to theory, should have breathed its last once the Soviet Union had capitulated.

One wonders, when these characters are so committed to a continued American hegemony, if they haven’t got a vested interest in the continued threat of radical Islam?*

*rhetorical question