digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Muslim Police Officer Refuses To Guard Israeli Embassy

guardian.co.uk — Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, last night ordered an urgent review of a policy that allows officers to refuse certain duties on moral grounds after a decision to excuse a Muslim policeman from guarding the Israeli embassy in London.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • zahadum, on 10/12/2007, -50/+26utterly brazen!

    complete insordination.

    they should be cashiered!

    it is unbelieveable what utter tosh is being tolerated in the name of political correctness.

    it is an HONOUR for these muslims to be trusted to protect such important places as embassies; they should feel ashamed for their special pleading - substituting their dirty politics for a serious claim of moral conscious (ha! what an oxymoron for them!)

    ship 'em off to the front lines in iraq, i say!
    • DanThePainter, on 10/12/2007, -32/+19I was with you till the "ship 'em off to the front lines in Iraq" comment. Who would want this guy as a brother in arms? I would not be surprised if he fragged an officer.
    • heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -21/+29Yeah, obviously anyone that disagrees with the Israeli state's actions in Lebanon is a terrorist. :rolleyes:
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -20/+38"it is an HONOUR for these muslims to be trusted to protect such important places as embassies; "

      No more than it is an honour for anyone else

      Muslims are part of society like anyone else, no more important and no less, and yet, if a Jew refused to guard the Lebanese embassy, no-one would mention it twice. If an atheist war protester refused to guard the US embassy in London they would probably be applauded. The right to freedom and protest is a strongly treasured tenant of society that applies to any individual, no matter what their beliefs. If Christian extremists can protest gays at Military funerals, why can't a normal Muslim refuse to guard the embassy of a country that's bombs his people without mercy?

      And if you're seriously accusing a religion of 1.5 billion people of having no moral conscious, you should seriously ask yourself this question: You've just dismissed 1/4 of the world's population as morally unconscious. How more arrogant could you possibly get?
    • chriis, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9"I would not be surprised if he fragged an officer."

      I wouldn't be surprised either, given what the officers seem to be doing to the civilian population, not to mention the horrors at Guantanamo bay.
    • anvilon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@chriis
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-03-guantanamo-weight_x.htm?csp=34

      "The meals include meats prepared according to Islamic guidelines, fresh bread and yogurt. With nearly all detainees fasting in the daytime during Ramadan, authorities have arranged for two separate meals — a post-sunset meal and a midnight meal — to be delivered after dark. Traditional desserts and honey are served during the Ramadan observances."

      Ah yes, the horrors.
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15I just want to add that this has nothing to do with religion, because people keep missing htis point:

      " PC Alexander Omar Basha, who is attached to the force's Diplomatic Protection Group, objected to being posted to protect Israel's embassy in central London from possible terrorist attack because he **disagreed with the country's bombing of Lebanon**. The officer had reportedly **attended a recent anti-war protest.**"

      That's the second paragraph of the article.
    • chriis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4anvilon
      Sorry, mixed up the names. I meant this. http://tinyurl.com/purdw
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17First of all this officer didn't refuse to guard the Israeli embassy but asked to be transfered since his Wife is Lebanese. This request was upheld by his force and he has since offered to return to guarding the embassy since Israel left the Lebanon.

      This guy is neither a deserter or at fault here. Regularly police ask for transfers where emotional matters wrt their families can conflict with duty. It was a standard procedure and if anyone is to blame it is the office who ratified the transfer. He had every right to request the transfer.

      The question is whether the move was politically motivated or whether it was solely due to family issues. If he made the move solely due to his family then the actions were appropriate.

      This is just Sir Ian Blair trying to deflect attention from himself after his force made an increasing series of blunders following the London bombings. Also he has been criticised for interfering in the political process. A lot of people in Britain would like to see him go away and this is a PR stunt to aid him in that regard.
    • oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Ins(ub)ordination or not, this is, at worst, punishable by firing the officer. This incident is (IMHO) not nearly that severe. This incident apparently has nothing to do with the officer being Muslim (although that is most certainly the reason this is considered "news").

      There was no harm done. I would much rather the officer tell his superiors that he is not willing to take on this assignment rather than he take the assignment, treat it like the worst job ever, and not actually perform his duties as an officer.

      Every officer has political views and if they are able to keep them out of their work, they will perform all that much better as an effective officer. It's not as though there is a shortage of officers willing to guard an embassy of a friendly nation.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Some hangups should be accommodated, some hangups it is okay to accomodate, and some should never be accomodated at all. I don't know which this is though.
    • RandomGuySteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4A transfer would be acceptable, but I don't think a good police officer should let his personal believes affect him doing his job. Then again, they are only human.
    • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well there is nothing wrong with him disagreeing with the polocies of Israel, but he has a job to do and needs to do it to the best of his ability regardless... He doesn't like it he can go and apply for a more appropriate job.. :/
  • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -35/+10Zahadum----->"it is a honour for these Muslims to be trusted to protect such important places as a embassies."
    First of all, let me set u down to reality , Muslims guard the president of the united states! the Israeli embassies is a spy nest and fund rising center peddling sympathy for the Zionism plan of a state similar to that of the old South African government. so many god fearing persons aware of the actions of the Jewish theocracy during its short history, would not want to be involved with it. That's why products marked "made in Israel" are always sitting on store shelves dusty where ever i go.
    so it may be a honor for you to guard the Israeli embassy, but i would prefer to use it as a pubic rest room for a better use of space in my city.
    • foopirata, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@SSWolfensteinSS

      I guess your nickname says it all, no? Not the "Wolfenstein" part, such a good game, blasting Nazis to hell. The SS. Double. Oh well.

      It is indeed good info to know that some of those dedicated Secret Service agents protecting POTUS and other US Gov. figures are, indeed, Muslim. I am sure most of them adhere to the positive aspects of the religion, namely, charity, wisdom, tradition, family values. I don't think we'll see any of them inciting jihad, honor-killing their female family members, or exploding themselves into cafes.

      As to your diatribe about one thing zionist or another - and how you'd use the embassy premises as a "pubic rest room" - I guess you'd better use it as a school,or as a civic center, perhaps then your level would raise a bit, and you'd recognize yourself as the bigot you make yourself to be, and join the human race.
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am amazed at how much prejudice is in this thread. Did any of you actually RTFA?
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whoops. That was meant for the next thread. --v
    • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2People dont like reality. but its a fact. the state of Israel is a product of a Zionist plan itched in central Europe. The Arabians are the Victims of that plan. we going to tell it like it is. We are not the dumb Bedouins like when the first Zionist arrived to the middle east with their advanced WWII tested weaponry for easy aiming on the dumb Arabs and their families . so things are a bit tougher now . it was a one-side massacre but the "cowardly Arabs" would not accept surrender or acceptance of this plan nor will they ever.. its not easy to steal peoples land and rights. this is not hate mail its facts. The days of peddling sympathy and support for the rouge state of Israel Thur the western worlds guilt and shame of the Holocaust should not be the problem of the natives of the middle east. and once you use the bible to justify Israel. then Muslims have all the rights to try and impose their beliefs in their land and world!
    • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"People dont like reality. but its a fact. the state of Israel is a product of a Zionist plan itched in central Europe."

      You don't like reality, and honestly not many can blame you to much, you have been spoonfed propganda since birth obviously.. Also you should feel happy that you are proving the conservatives view of Arabs.. Good job

      "The Arabians are the Victims of that plan. we going to tell it like it is. We are not the dumb Bedouins like when the first Zionist arrived to the middle east with their advanced WWII tested weaponry for easy aiming on the dumb Arabs and their families ."

      So let me get this straight, you DEMAND people to treat you and your ilk with respect and acceptance but you REFUSE to do the same of others.. You are why there are terroist.. Pat yourself on your back and hope you aren't already on the boogey man's list...
  • Dewhead, on 10/12/2007, -17/+50Most people would be fired for refusing to do their job. Can imagine how horrible this will be if this type of thing continues? What next? Muslim doctors refusing to treat Jewish patients? Christain police officers refusing to come to the aid of a Muslim during a crime? They better set this straight now or expect a lot worse in the future.
    • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -31/+28Dewhead-----> maybe you do not get out the house much... Anti-Israel does not mean Anti-Jewish. so your statement makes no sense and i do not ask people what religion they are before i offer help, to someone in need . Only a idiot would.. so get real.
    • inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -18/+10yeah, what's next, pharmacists refusing to do their job by refusing to sell over the counter medications because of "moral objections"?

      well, at least we live in a world full of reasonable people where something like that would never be allowed to happen.

      oh, wait, it does.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -9/+36It doesn't matter if he's anti-israel, anti-jewish, anti-purple people or anti-panty. He's a policeman, he took an oath to do his job without prejudice. And that applies to anyone in a public position who believes they can pick and choose which tasks they do based on their beliefs or morals.
    • OMGWTFROFLMAO, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3"It doesn't matter if he's anti-israel, anti-jewish, anti-purple people or anti-panty. He's a policeman, he took an oath to do his job without prejudice. And that applies to anyone in a public position who believes they can pick and choose which tasks they do based on their beliefs or morals."

      ^^
      This statement is either very optimistic or very naive.
    • mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4But he's a British Policeman....

      Those guys dont carry guns lol...

      Ok I kid I kid..
    • dilbertmouse, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"He's a policeman, he took an oath to do his job without prejudice." [--tiz66]
      "This statement is either very optimistic or very naive." [--OMGWTFROFLMAO]

      Well, it shouldn't be and I'll support any effort to make it a truth. If you honestly believe that it should remain optimistic and naive, I'd love to know why.
    • liquidrums, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8Yea, because a Muslim disregarding the safety of a Jew is sooo rare these days.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think the fact that a single incident has become such a big story in the UK shows that on the whole, it isn't optimistic to expect policemen here to perform their job without prejudice - they actually do it.

      Police in the UK have a totally different attitude to police in the US (generally), so it's a different situation.
    • BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7"Anti-Israel does not mean Anti-Jewish."

      With few exceptions, it does. There are many arabs that live in Israel and co-exist peacefully, do you think this clown is protesting their citizenship?

      Also, why does this ***** live in Britian, the country that CREATED Israel?
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Perhaps you don't understand the situation. He's protesting a WAR not a religion. The Majority of Muslims support Judaism and Christianity in the same way as Christians support Jews; they consider the religions as predacessors, not enemies. People who have discovered most of the truth, but not all of it. What this man is protesting is very clearly stated in the article. He went to an Anti-war rally to protest the Israeli advancement and civilian bombing of Lebanon. Religion doesnt even come into it. He is protesting a war. The fact that he is a Muslim is secondary.

      To BassCadet. All Israelis are Jewish, but not all Jewish are Israelis. Many actually protest Israel's actions.
    • counterplex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the point that is missed in all this sub-discussion is that the policeman, who works in London (that's in the United Kingdom folks), is perfectly allowed to refuse a job on moral or emotional grounds according to the rules of his employment. That alone means this is by no means a fire-able offense.
    • JamesShiell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is really all bollocks, as he didn't refuse the job. He *requested* a transfer.

      Had the transfer been refused and he had walked out, or otherwise failed to do his duty, then he would be at fault. As it is, he's no worse than an officer who *asks* not to work on their birthday.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Refusing to do your job isn't as much as a problem as pretending to do your job and then not doing it. You can usually assign someone somewhere else and get someone else to do the job.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't support "any effort" because some of them will be bad ideas.
    • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@SSwolfenmoron
      first you said:
      "the Israeli embassies is a spy nest and fund rising center peddling sympathy for the Zionism plan of a state similar to that of the old South African government."

      than you say:
      "Dewhead-----> maybe you do not get out the house much... Anti-Israel does not mean Anti-Jewish. so your statement makes no sense and i do not ask people what religion they are before i offer help, to someone in need . Only a idiot would.. so get real."

      Oh thats right, you can lie to people not of your faith, to late you've already set yourself up as a hateful person who wants nothing but the worse..
  • GlargTheKelfn, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23he should be fired. leave your religion at home and do your job. i mean, you wouldnt want me snacrificing a goat every morning would you?
    • domr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31. He did not refuse to do his job, he ASKED to be transferred, and that request was accepted. The story is not about the muslim officer, but whether his superiors should have given him permission.

      2. Diplomatic protection is a volunteer role. If he should be 'fired' at all, it should only be from the diplomatic protection role.
  • thepeacemaker, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9That's like asking a black person to guard the South African embassy during the apartheid days. This has nothing to do with Jews or their religion. There are a number of Jewish people who take a stand against the Israeli govt's policies.

    "If I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank could describe events in (apartheid) South Africa."

    - Desmond Tutu of South Africa,
    Archbishop & Nobel Peace Prize winner
    December, 1989.
  • Roger, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23Muslim bashing in 3... 2... 1....
    • mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I think its more of a policy problem than a religion problem.
    • heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8What do you call a guy who bangs 6 year olds and tells everyone who will listen that god says to steal everything you can from everyone who doesn't share your beliefs?

      Mohammed!

      Okay, it's not really snappy enough to be a joke, I admit, but I still laugh.
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"PC Alexander Omar Basha, who is attached to the force's Diplomatic Protection Group, objected to being posted to protect Israel's embassy in central London from possible terrorist attack because he disagreed with the country's bombing of Lebanon. The officer had reportedly attended a recent anti-war protest."

      This has nothing to do with being Muslim, it has to do with being anti-war.
  • flink405, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15So what happens when a Jewish family calls for help, does this guy get to refuse to help them?
    Or this policeman sees a Jewish person being robbed or beaten, he gets to turn away and act like he didn´t see it happening?
    A Synagogue is burning down, these Muslim policeman refuses to call the fire dept and that´s okay?
    A Muslim and a Jew are trapped in a burning car, this policeman only has to rescue the Muslim?
    • manicleek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11He didn't say anything about being anti-jew, he said he was anti-israel.

      He is against the actions taken by the government of Israel, not by the people of the Jewish religion.

      When will idiots like you learn to differentiate. I suppose you thin all terrorists are muslims and all black people are "African American"?
    • amcluesent, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, is widely known to want a segragated Police force so that blacks arrest blacks, muslims arrest muslims etc. It's about 'cultural sensitivity', which as we all know is far more imporant than actually fighting crime in Londonistan.
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"PC Alexander Omar Basha, who is attached to the force's Diplomatic Protection Group, objected to being posted to protect Israel's embassy in central London from possible terrorist attack because he disagreed with the country's bombing of Lebanon. The officer had reportedly attended a recent anti-war protest."
    • judsond, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5His job is to protect people and ensure the safety of the population, not to make political statements. Whether he agrees with the actions of the government of Israel or not, his job, as a civil police officer, is to protect people and enforce the law. Protecting an Israeli embassy doesn't matter, it's not a sign that you support them, it's a sign that you support your local laws, and can act in a way fitting your job.

      When a building burns down, lets say it's a gay club, and the firefighters come and put out the fire, does anyone think they should have the right to choose not to stop the fire? Of course not, that isn't their job, and no one associates them putting the fire out with any support of the building's owner.
    • flink405, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2manicleek -
      Substitute the Jewish references in my post to a "person from Israel" if you like. Still does not make it right. A policeman is to serve and protect everyone in the community, not just the ones he likes.

      The guy is taking his actions because of his Muslim religion. (Oh yeah and I think Israel is referred to as the "Jewish State"; i.e. it is made up of Jews. If one is anti-Israel then one is most likely anti-Jew.)

      So next it would be okay for all non-Muslim police officers NOT to come to the aid of Muslim victims or people in need of police help?
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"The guy is taking his actions because of his Muslim religion"

      This guy is taking his actions because HIS WIFE IS FROM LEBANON, a country that just had 1300+ of its civilians killed by Israel for no good reason. This guy is taking his actions because he protests violence death and killing.
    • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Give me a break, Israel is a "Jewish State" everyone admits it, the Arabs, the Italians, the Spainards.. But what you can't admit it here? When are you people going to stop giving hateful people the right to kill and sucidie bomb?!
  • wfmk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14He's broken the terms of his contract, and therefore he should be fired:

    "I (name) do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of Constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

    Religion, therefore, is irrelevant.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7He didn't refuse to do his job, so that doesn't really apply. He requested to move and the request was granted.
  • olliholliday, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11This story has been made up by one newspaper - The Sun, a tabloid rag.

    Other, more sensible, papers are reporting that a lebanese policeman was moved away from guarding the israeli embassy by his superiors, after he expressed concern that he might be in danger from the institutionally racist embassy employees.
    • mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2reminds me of that lethal weapon movie.... Diplomatic Immunity!
    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Israeli's are now "institutionally racist"? You call THAT "responsible" reporting?
    • Aharoni, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Sure. Blame the Israelis. Now its "racist embassy employees" that are the problem.
      I'm waiting for the photoshopped pictures to be published.
    • foopirata, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Oh. Of course. It is all the Israeli's fault. The poor "lebanese policeman" (wait, didn't this happen in London? Don't you have to be a British citizen to be a policeman over there?) felt his personal security was being attacked from inside the embassy (obviously with cluster bombs)..PLEASE! Some respect for our collective inteligence. Take the blame sometimes, if only sometimes, start acting as adults...

      That, in a little puddle, is all the problems with the Arab Middle-East: nobody willing to take responsibility for their own doing.
  • gamalkik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3*one* police officer that refused to perform *one* order and it makes digg front page

    that's what i call being "over informed"

    such details are so irrelevant in the global scheme of the conflict.
  • Hortos, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@thepeacemaker Black people though we have the name "African-American" since our country of origin is rather hard to figure out aren't Africans and generally we're pretty far removed. That's close to calling someone from Spain a Mexican based on their common lineage. Africans actually have countries of origin, black people have a continent of origin.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I'm sure those folk from the Carribean and other non-African countries who are natively black will appreciate that last comment.
    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5How about WHITE "African-Americans"?

      I've known more than one person whose immigrated to the U.S. from Africa that were WHITE as new snow!

      This is why hyphenated Americanism is crap. It doesn't reflect reality AT ALL. It makes a mockery of American citizenship and is very confusing to educated peoples who move here.

      I can understanding moving to America and wanting to retain the traditions of your culture.

      What I can't understand is moving to America, becoming an American citizen, and then promptly "going hyphen" to force everyone else to recognize your heritage.

      I'm a first generation American who spoke German before English. Lithuanian was my third language. You still don't catch me calling myself a "German-American" or a "Lithuanian-American."

      I am AMERICAN and that is good enough.
  • alf86, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7It seems to me this guy knew his beliefs would conflict with the assignment. He apparently felt he would not be able perform his duties to the best of his abilities and so protested the assignment. The embassy is safer without him "protecting" it.

    I think he did the right thing. This is not refusing to protect a random person on the street, which would be wrong.
  • andrewmp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I support this police officer, he requested to change assignments based on his political views - big deal. The fact that it's the taboo topic of Israel is irrelevant.
    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5That's the point and the problem. Public servants should not have the right, or ability, to refuse assignments based on political views. If you have a MORAL conflict that would be a different matter.

      When you show up to work you should leave your politics at the door. You're on your employers time and I really doubt that they are paying you to espouse your world viewpoint or political opinion.
    • SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Buelldozer
      "If you have a MORAL conflict that would be a different matter."

      Since when is being anti-war not a moral issue?
  • metamorfoza, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I can't believe that every reasonable comments are being dugg down.
    EDIT: apparently not anymore..
    Maybe the Commissioner should sack the policeman involved, however that doesn't exclude the right of policeman(or any person for that matter) to refuse to do what he think is wrong/unethical or immoral for this reason or another

    Embassy represents the state. not the people.I doubt that Amrican police-officers would gurad Cuban embassy.
    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3What he was asked to do was NOT wrong, unethical, or immoral. What he was asked to merely conflicted with his political views and opinions. There is a very, very, large difference. People who serve the public good should not be allowed to choose their assignments based on their politics. If they have a genuine moral problem with what they are asked to do that is different.

      We can't discuss for sure the other part of your post since there IS no Cuban embassy in America! However, in general, it is quite normal for a 'host' nation to provide some number of guards to a foreign embassy. That includes embassies in the United States.
    • Aharoni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3During the Gaza pullout many officers in the Israeli army refused to "transfer jewish people from their homes".
      Whatever your political view on the subject is regradless. These officers refused an order based on their belief and they were told to either "deal with it or get the hell out".
      This should be exactly the same case. If this guy can't put his political views aside from the job, no matter if its about Israel/South-Africa/USA or whatever, then simply this kind of job isn't for him and he should change his career.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4He *DID NOT* refuse to do the task assigned to him. He requested to be moved, and the request was granted to him. There are absolutely no grounds whatsoever for firing him.
    • IBadassI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Let's get the story right once and for all. He did not refuse because of moral grounds or anything like that. He asked for a transfer for the safty of his family. Think about it. His wife's family is Lebanese. Parts of Lebanon have been bombed to smithereens by Israel. He then gets spotted by Lebanese people whose houses have been bombed by the very country he is protecting. Then what?

      Don't you think for the safety of his wifes family he should ask his superiors to consider his position? His superiors did and they agreed to the transfer. Nothing wrong in that. Put yourself in his shoes. It has nothing to do with religion, even though the media might be trying to suggest that.
  • cikcanada, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Well, perhaps to start, I ought disclose that I'm an Orthodox EXTREMELY pro-Israel (and yes that means Zionist) Jew.

    Now then, one can be anti Israel without being an anti-semite. Muslims traditionally (up until 1948) are SIGNIFICANTLY more philo-semetic than anti. We did much better in muslim countries than Catholic ones, and I'm speaking as a Morcoccan Jew here. The issues these countries have is with another religion running Israel. The issue was the same when the Christians tried to take Israel in crusades.

    That being the case, the officer should be applauded for his view. I appreciate the officer's honesty. Quite frankly I'd feel safer inside a building guarded by those I know want to be there as opposed to those that don't. If there is any possibility of danger, I definitely want someone who is absolutely behind protecting my safety.

    Given that this officer has doubts (regardless of whether or not they are reasonable), I applaud his decision. Further, he shouldn't be faulted for using an existing policy to enable his decision; if you're going to get mad about something, try the policy itself.
    • gbyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm an Israeli, and a Jew (duh.. more of an atheist..).
      I think that this issue is taken way out of proportions.
      As I heard, all he did was express concern over his ability to do his job, considering that he has Lebanese relatives and that it was during the war makes his concern very valid. I wouldn't want any guards that are not 100% focused on what they're doing.

      On another note.. Why the hell does every discussion that involves Israel turns into a flaming pit of hell and stupidity? (besides digg being digg... )
      Well, at least the Nazi dude's post on the top was left without comments.. remember kids, don't feed the trolls :)
    • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1qbyte:if you are a isreali living in isreal ,then your the closest thing to a nazi here! good blessings my nutrition does not depend on you or your ***** goverment, because the world sees how the isreali goverment feels about peoples nutrition.
      Also isreali settler, if you feel the born again christains who run the American goverment are your good friends and protectors .Ask how they view your long term future, that will give you some food for the trolls....
  • Jawood, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I don't get why so many Muslims hate Israel. Why, because it's Jewish state? Or is it because their mullahs are telling them to?

    The only folks that have any real reason to hate Israel are the Palestinians because it was their land that was taken by the Western European powers; who, by the way, wanted to get the Jews out of Europe under the pretense of giving them their own land.
  • JhAgA, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Funny. It's like, Gandalf ordering Frodo to guard the gates of Mordor. Wake up Gandalf! Send Boromir instead!
  • mizraabianz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0heinousjay - that joke was not funny and you should respect other religions. as far as this case is concern , i don't know whats the big deal about this, the guy is Anti-War so he protest against it.. so what?? at least he is bold enough to do that like most of us.
  • endtime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Just for the record, "Palestinian Arab land" (i.e. Israel) was not "stolen" or "taken". Much of it was bought, by Jews, from owners who did not even live on it. And the rest of it was given up when the Palestinian Arabs fled in 1948, assured by their Arab brothers that they could move back soon, after all the Jews had been killed by the Arab armies. They picked the losing (as well as genocidal) side of that war and now they have to accept the consequences.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The wonders of half-truths. The larger wonders of 1/16th truths.
    • SSWolfensteinSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ endtime:what kind of missinformation are you sending out here suppy independent foot notes for your facts. i want to read that comic book! when you talk about consequences, concider those of any dumbass person that would travel to the middle east to settle in stolen bediun land. he will suffer the worest .
  • endtime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh, and on topic, the officer should not be allowed to refuse an assignment based on his political views. When he is in his uniform, he is an instrument of the government (by his own choosing; he was not drafted). Therefore, his only politics can be the politics of the government.

    I am interested to know whether this officer refused, as the headline states, or just requested to be moved. A request wouldn't bother me that much; a refusal, so honored, would.
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, he just requested to be moved. Also, I'm not sure that what you're saying applies in London, where the restraints on freedom are very different to those in the USA
  • endtime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Last post on this:

    - The claim separating Zionism from Judaism is weak. Anti-Zionist Jews are generally extremists, either on the left or the right, and are far less mainstream in Jewish culture worldwide than are terrorists in Islamic culture.

    - If you say this is about Israel and not Judaism, fine, let's say that's the case. If an Israeli was visiting England and was mugged, and a Muslim police officer saw it happening, should he be permitted to just let it happen? Does it make a difference whether that Israeli tourist works for Intel or, perhaps, works for the Israeli government in some way? All police officers should be required to do their duties. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be police officers.
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2That's barely a legitimate argument. Should he let the isreali be mugged? No, because a responsible officer would not do that. This officer is doing the proper thing beforehand, refusing to have the responsibility burdened on him in the first place.
  • ilitirit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2a muslim refuses to do his duties before he dislikes a religion, and that's that.
    a christian refuses to do his duties before he dislikes a religion, and he hijacks a plane.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2387629,00.html

    oh, the irony...
  • desiTek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0[quote] by mandarin 53 minutes ago

    But he's a British Policeman....

    Those guys don't carry guns lol...

    Ok I kid I kid.. [/quote]
    than how they guard the ppl?
    don't tell me they r trained by hulk hogan or rock :)
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The citizens don't carry guns either.

      Actually I hear that the military is currently developing methods of using their incredible wit to take down the enemy without force [/monty_python]
  • foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Easy solution: you don't do your job, you get fired. Done.
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Maybe he'd rather be fired than support a terrorist nation like isreal?
    • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Or maybe he should be fired and lose all of his benifits? Why should one type of people be treated above another? Sorry but the rest of us have to do jobs even if we don't like them and we do them... We are NOT so weak we cry "boohooo they're picking on me" everytime we do a job we don't like... Grow up.
  • IBadassI, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think everyone is missing the main point. His superiors shouldn't have put him in this position in the first place, I'm sure there are dozens of other embassies that could have been assigned.

    Also the media is blowing this up too much. The main reason: He's a muslim and it's something to do with Israel. Sensational News everybody, flavour of the month!
    • wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's the first thing that crossed my mind. Why the hell did they give him that assignment in the first place? Useless.
  • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If you pay attention to the terrorism isreal carries out against muslim populations, this shouldn't be a surprise to you.

    Do I excuse those who are violent in the name of islam? No. The rest of the world thinks of me as "dumb American". Will I prove them right with a blind bias towards the terrorist state of isreal? Hell no.
    • emid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Israel" not "Isreal". I let it go on the first post, but you did it twice. Not really a hard country to spell properly.
    • foopirata, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sorry. If you're labeled as a "dumb American", it is, possibly, because a large percentage of you folks (which incidentally I find most lovely and great people, just a bit challenged sometimes.Blame it on MTV.) can't find Iraq in a map without at least 3 chances. Or know where the Middle East is. Or know how to spell Mississipi.

      In your case, I think I'll go with "PC-misinformed-American", or perhaps, in the best tradition of the late USSR, "useful idiot". Wake up and smell the math. Israel has been defending herself from acts of terrorism way before '67, when the "palestinian people" seems to have begun their milenar history (see, that's irony, here labeled to ease your understanding). The territories in question (with the exception of Jerusalem) have been offered back to Egypt and Jordan (to whom their belonged before these countries attacked Israel in 67), and were refuted by them. They were offered to the Palestinian Authority, and they got a "everything or nothing" back.

      Inform yourself. Then people won't think of you as "dumb American".
  • ZoRocks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't know how many of you are actual police officers or have done any civil service duties... but I am a Criminal Justice major and I have interned for almost a year now at the local Sheriff's office in town. Being a Muslim it is always hard, wait let me rephrase that being a minority where you have to practice your beliefs that conflict with the majority is always hard. So its just not Muslims I'm positive every minority with the same set of circumstances goes through this. But we have a policy called "conflict of interest" any situation that will put you at a "conflict of interest" with in your duty as a peace officer you aren't supposed to do. Just like you aren't supposed to investigate any wrong doing by your own family members. When you are assigned to deal with someone that has a direct influence on something you believe passionately about that is also a conflict of interest. If your C.O. doesn't take you off it not realizing the problem as a conflict of interest you as an officer are supposed to take yourself off. So i whole heatedly agree with what he did and it also makes him look more professional. Now having said that also being a Muslim I wouldn't have shy-ed away from an assignment like that because my personal belief is that I would go and perform that duty to the best of abilities protecting those from a country that kill my brothers, but realizing my brothers also suicide bomb themselves randomly in their country. I would try to make friends at that embassy let them have a sense that even though we all have different opinions we can still be friends. That not all Israeli's are proud of their current regime and not all Muslims are suicide bombers and terrorists.
    Also i am really tired of people saying being anti Israel is being anti Jewish! No!! this is not true. I dated a Jewish girl before and we both really liked each other but the pressure from both sides of our family we couldn't keep it going. Please people think before you say something.
    • foopirata, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sir, please let me applaud your attitude. While I don't agree with your views on Israel (while not disputing the unfortunate killings of civilians that happen while Israel combats terror), your intention to seek out those of us interested in hearing your side of the story and in building bridges instead of bombing buses makes you what i can safely call "the bright moment of my day". If only more of us, as well as more of your Muslim brethren, could only join in the same intentions and acts.

      Sir, I salute you.

  • scottelloco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Would this guy also refuse to protect an Israeli tourist if they were being attacked or mugged?

    It might be a good time for him to find a new job, preferrably not in public service. Working for the public means working for every law abiding person in the community, not just the people he chooses.
    • IBadassI, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@scottelloco.

      You are really missing the point! He asked for a transfer in order to protect his wife's family, not because he didn't want to defend the embassy. (see my previous posts). Put yourself in his position. Anyway I think this story is being blown out of all proportion.

      To quote theone3 above: "if a Jew refused to guard the Lebanese embassy, no-one would mention it twice. If an atheist war protester refused to guard the US embassy in London they would probably be applauded."

      I can see that the press just jumps all over anything to do with Muslims in order to aid "Muslim Bashing" (call me a conspirocist but just keep observing news items related to muslims). The media is just making it easier for their governments to soften the people they govern to take away peoples rights.
  • OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1SOLUTION: Have them watch a Pig Pen.
    • IBadassI, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@OwdenBowden
      Oh that certainly helps.

      You sir are an idiot, An idiot, an idiot, an idiot.
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Rather be an IDIOT than a Muslim and or French.
  • ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Damnright!
  • ZoRocks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@foopirata - thanks i appreciate it! i just hope more people would realize what i said

    @owdenbowden - your an idiot, i don't think you really believe what you say but just try to get a rise out of people on here... wait i have solution for you get educated!
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ZoRocks is that your name or is that what you do? No rise needed and No idiot here. JUst an American who is sick for the crap that is the rest of the world. If it were not for the Americans and the Brits all of you would have been killed off along time ago. Time to face facts - muslims are now respondsible for starting WW III and WW IV. Come out of your caves and embrace the fact that your culture died a long time ago and you need to get with the program - no matter what relogion or race you are.
  • riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3wow so many American noses firmly lodged in Israel's crotch!!
  • spd998, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Wow this is terrible the idiot, he should be sacked (and then deported).
    • IBadassI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think everyone in the UK should be deported and the country given back to the original Britons.

      Also I think everyone should be kicked out of USA so that it can be given back to the original citizens of that land i.e. the Red Indians (for those not educated enough).

      So spd998, shall I help you pack?
  • alrahman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Channel 4 (UK) reported that it was because he felt he would be a target during high tensions during the Lebanon war, and because his wife was Lebanese, she would be a target as well.
  • Walt65, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4He sucks.
    Fire his ass.
  • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Fire him, and then send him back to which ever armpit country he came from.
  • spd998, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am one of the original Britons dumbass ***** you are you one of the original (insert "your" countries name here)?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.