Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Israel and Jewish identity

Cranmer has received an abridged version of Melanie Phillips' article in the Jewish Chronicle (11 Jan) which is worth quoting at length, for it identifies succinctly Israel's most potent seeds of destruction:

‘Beyond the grandstanding over President Bush's visit to Israel this week, there is an even more important concern than over what America may be pushing it to do. This is Israel's own attitude towards its identity and history and, by extension, its right to exist at all.

‘Among the Israeli intellectual elite, the instinct for national self-destruction reaches near-hallucinatory levels.

‘A recent research paper by doctoral candidate Tal Nitzan, which wondered why unlike other armies Israeli soldiers did not rape women under their occupation, claimed that this was because IDF troops viewed Arab women as sub-human. This absurd piece of malice was awarded a teachers' committee prize by the Hebrew University.

‘Clearly, Nitzan should have interviewed Ha'aretz editor-in-chief David Landau, who was reported as telling US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a dinner last September that the Israeli government wanted 'to be raped' as it was a 'failed state' that needed a US-imposed settlement.

‘Such grand guignol flights from reason can only deepen respect for the strategic genius of Yasser Arafat. He understood that while Jews would unite against conventional attack, they wouldn't cope with the psychological pressure of being turned into international pariahs through a falsified colonial narrative of oppression.

‘But even he could hardly have foreseen the extent to which Israeli intellectuals would so completely invert their own history, and swallow the fiction that the Middle East impasse is over the division of the land and that Jewish possession of that land is illegitimate.

‘This series of untruths has now coalesced into an axiomatic assumption that Jerusalem must be divided, as stated by Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in an interview in the Jerusalem Post last weekend.

‘But as Dore Gold authoritatively documents in his important book 'The Fight for Jerusalem', the Jews have a unique and overwhelming claim to Jerusalem which is central to the unique nature of the Jewish state.

‘It is no accident, therefore, that this pressure to divide Jerusalem comes at a time when the Jewishness of Israel is being openly called into question. Olmert says that a 'two state solution' is essential to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. But the Arabs themselves have now ruled out a Jewish state altogether. Shortly before Annapolis, the Palestinians' chief negotiator Saeeb Erekat said they would 'never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity'.

‘Olmert insists nevertheless that Mahmoud Abbas accepts Israel as a Jewish state 'in his soul'. Olmert clearly possesses truly wondrous psychic powers, displayed even as members of Fatah associated with Abbas's own security apparatus were murdering two Israelis on a hike near Hebron.

‘The west believes that dividing Jerusalem is the fairest solution. But when were aggressors ever thus rewarded at the expense of their victims, even while they continued their century-old war as the Arabs are doing?

‘Why doesn't Israel put the record straight? Why doesn't it remind the world of that same world's conclusion back in 1920 that the Jews had a unique claim to the entire land of Israel, including Jerusalem? Why doesn't it recall how, when Jordan illegally occupied east Jerusalem until 1967, it desecrated Jewish holy sites, ripping up Jewish gravestones on the Mount of Olives to use them for latrines?

‘Why doesn't it tell the world that the Islamic claim to Jerusalem is not so much religious as political * and that as Gold states in his book, since the capture of Jerusalem is seen as the precursor to the fall of the entire west the division of the city would recruit untold additional numbers to the global jihad?

‘It doesn't do so for two reasons. First, it still fails to grasp that the real battleground is composed not of rockets and human bombs but of ideas. And second, much of its intellectual class has come to believe the mendacious propaganda of Israel's enemies.

‘In Israeli schools and on campus, there is widespread ignorance of Jewish history and of the indissoluble bond between the religion, the people and the land which constitutes Jewish identity. When Israel's Education Minister issues a textbook for Israeli Arab children that teaches them the Arab propaganda line that the 1948 War of Independence was a naqba, or catastrophe, something has gone badly wrong with the foundations of Israeli self-belief.

‘When the Israel government refuses to stop the Muslim authorities in charge of the Temple Mount from destroying countless excavated artefacts from the Temple in order to obliterate the evidence of the historic Jewish claim to Jerusalem, one has to conclude that Israeli diplomacy has morphed into pathology.

‘The real reason Israel doesn't fight the battle of ideas to defend Jewish history and identity is that increasingly it is repudiating them. The Arabs thus don't need to do much to bring about the end of the Jewish state. The Jews will do it for them.’

Cranmer finds much wisdom in the words of Ms Phillips, but none moreso than in the parallels which may be found with the present UK context. Consider:

In England’s schools and on campus, there is widespread ignorance of English history and of the indissoluble bond between the Protestant religion, the people and the land which constitutes English identity. When England’s Education Minister affirms a National Curriculum that eradicates Winston Churchill, teaches children that the British Empire was catastrophe, or that a parliament and self-rule for the English is racist, something has gone badly wrong with the foundations of English self-belief.

The real reason that Great Britain doesn't fight the battle of ideas to defend English history and identity is that increasingly it is repudiating them… EUrabia thus doesn’t need to do much to bring about the end of the English state. The British will do it for them.’

27 Comments:

Blogger Jomo said...

Did England begin in the 16th Century?

Sounds as if you wish to join the vandals on Temple Mount

I don't faith alone will save us. What about Crecy and Agincourt.

15 January 2008 at 08:56  
Blogger Jomo said...

Did England begin in the 16th Century?

Sounds as if you wish to join the vandals on Temple Mount

I don't think faith alone will save us. What about Crecy and Agincourt.

15 January 2008 at 08:57  
Anonymous woman on a raft said...

I have just withdrawn my child from RE lessons. This is not because they teach RE, but because they don't. Instead, they serve up a soupy multi-culturalism which lacks even the traditional time-out for a robust poke at Christianity. The kid would be better off having a snooze on a gym mat than bothering with that brain-candy.

Time was that RE lessons consisted of a fairly neutral but important tour of the Bible, so that even those who thought it was nonsense could just about grasp its importance to the development of Britain. I am therefore setting about using a couple of good reference books which have been published in the last five years and have fished out the family King James version as we might as well have some poetry while we are about it. The child has been told this book is all but banned in school, which has considerably increased its attraction.

I hold the robust view that either a school should make available the RE which matters in Britain - Anglican Christianity - or else it should do an extra maths lesson. Goodness' knows we could do with either.

Your Grace therefore sums up the situation very well, except perhaps that you are optimistic about the outcome of teaching history to children. It ought to be attempted, of course, but since an understanding of history relies on an appreciation of time, children are at a natural disadvantage as their own perception of time is stretched. Essentially, the past to them looks much further away than it really is. Even very bright children are hopelessly confused about when the two major wars of the 20th century were.

In terms of revisionist history, one thing I noticed some years ago was that God was not mentioned on university Law papers. This came out when going through a back-catalogue of law exams in a traditional library. Up to about 1983 it was still possible to bump in to a question such as: 'Is law man-made or God-given - discuss' (giving the candidate a chance to demonstrate a grasp of competing theories of law), but at some time in that decade it was definitively decided that law is man-made and that the g-word should not be mentioned. He vanished from the papers.

Whilst I am not anxious to have law schools colonized by evangelists, creationists, and literalists, I fail to see how any degree-level law course can properly brief students if it does not mention the influence of Anglicanism on English law and the English law world. Modern law courses bang on compulsorily about the creation of European Law, as if there was no law before it. The thickness of those books makes my old KJB look like light reading, and they haven't got a decent story from one end to the other. They are intellectual anaesthetic, making it impossible to think straight or argue coherently. I suspect that is their purpose.

15 January 2008 at 10:11  
Anonymous NorthOfWatford said...

Stunning post, Your Grace.

Thus are many socially engineered to have no knowledge of most of our Nation's defining historical values, and to despise those of which they might have some slight understanding.

A Brave New World beckons, a cultural and religious Year Zero that leads only to Sharia.

15 January 2008 at 10:23  
Blogger Laban said...

"something has gone badly wrong with the foundations of English self-belief"

I presume your Grace is aware of the chapters in Peter Hitchens 'The Abolition of Britain' which give chapter and verse on the crumbling of the moral foundations ...

15 January 2008 at 11:03  
Anonymous mickey said...

Hear hear, your Grace.

I suggest that the National Curriculum be expanded to include Kipling's lecture entitled 'England and the English' forthwith.

Ref - http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/prose/BookOfWords/englandenglish.html

15 January 2008 at 12:24  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

The real reason Israel doesn’t fight the battle of ideas to defend Jewish history and identity is that increasingly it is repudiating them.

Perhaps part of the problem is that Jewish intellectuals are intellectuals first and idealogues second, unlike Ms Phillips.

Dore Gold authoritatively documents in his important book The Fight for Jerusalem, [that] the Jews have a unique and overwhelming claim to Jerusalem

Ms Phillips offers no other evidence for this underwhelming claim than an appeal to authority, Dore Gold, who does indeed have credentials. But what is the evidence he bases his argument on? Can it not be summarised in 20-30 words by Phillips? Is it so weak that an assertion of authority is its best hope?

Ms Phillips is a sincere believer in her causes, which according to Wikipedia includes campaigning against the MMR vaccine at an estimated cost of 100 young lives, but she does her project no service by exposing her presentational limitations while at the same time inviting comparison to real intellectuals.

15 January 2008 at 12:43  
Blogger John East said...

aethelbald, your majesty, I hope your will grant a lowly commoner one question.

Agreed that Ms P does make assumptions, as do we all in limited essays and blog contributions, but what about the assumption implicit in your phrase, "....perhaps part of the problem is that Jewish intellectuals are intellectuals first and idealogues second...."?

Since when did "being intellectual" confer wisdom and insight on anybody?

15 January 2008 at 14:21  
Anonymous mary tudor said...

I've already posted enough comments on Israel on a previous thread so I'm so not going there save to note that Mad Mel in full-on throwing the toys out of the pram mode (has she any other mode?) must be the greatest source of unintended comedy in contemporary scribblings. To slightly adopt Oscar Wilde: "One would have to have a heart of stone to read the writings of Mad Mel without laughing."

Keep going, Mel! You're a hoot...

15 January 2008 at 14:43  
Anonymous mickey said...

I suggest your Grace puts down his teacup before reading this:

"Muslim M&S worker refuses to sell 'unclean' Bible book to grandmother"

see Daily Mail website - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508263&in_page_id=1770

15 January 2008 at 15:50  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

His Grace and other Christians can be as friendly to Jews as they like. It will not stop Jews being hostile to Christians and seeking revenge for the past, though they will be happy to exploit you for their own ends.

15 January 2008 at 16:03  
Blogger Abe Bird said...

Well nedsherry....
You still hate the Jews and trust them as you trust rats... where from your hostility came? Do really think that Jews drink Christian's blood for Passover?
As far as I can look back into the history of both religions the Christians were the ones to chase and murder the Jews and not the vice versa. I think it is go on even these days, when I read you and other Anti Semites creatures.

15 January 2008 at 16:57  
Anonymous Nathan Hale said...

When, some eight or nine months ago, I encountered some of the attitudes and proposals of Israeli liberals, I realized that there are some people who are so pathological that they cannot be corrected, even in the face of immediate evidence.

15 January 2008 at 17:17  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

I was just thinking about characterising Melanie Phillips as an "infotainer" when I read Bloody Mary's post above and saw that I had been pipped at the post.

Anyone who can affect authority on immunology, climatology, social policy and geopolitics, all in the same decade, has to be having a laugh at someone.

John East asked: Since when did "being intellectual" confer wisdom and insight on anybody?


Not often. But does being a philistine confer wisdom or insight? On balance I would respectfully suggest that being an intellectual may confer more wisdom and insight, at least of a technical kind, than its opposite. I would suggest that Ms Phillips is an anti-intellectual by disposition. That expains her chutzpah, and her affiliation with the Daily Mail.

15 January 2008 at 17:59  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

"Anyone who can affect authority on immunology, climatology, social policy and geopolitics, all in the same decade, has to be having a laugh at someone."

Doesn't reporting on anything require "affecting" a certain level of authority? And why can't she produce a wide ranging output? It requires a highly dubious "affected" intellectual "authority" to say that on that on the basis of her wide output she cannot possibly have anything good to say about her chosen subjects.

"Ms Phillips offers no other evidence for this underwhelming claim than an appeal to authority, Dore Gold, who does indeed have credentials. But what is the evidence he bases his argument on? Can it not be summarised in 20-30 words by Phillips? Is it so weak that an assertion of authority is its best hope?"

E-mail and ask her.

15 January 2008 at 18:36  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Well nedsherry....
You still hate the Jews and trust them as you trust rats... where from your hostility came?


From Jewish hostility to my race and my ancestral religion.

Do really think that Jews drink Christian's blood for Passover?

No, and nothing I've said suggests otherwise. Do you really think Jews never use their enormous power and wealth to attack their enemies?

As far as I can look back into the history of both religions the Christians were the ones to chase and murder the Jews and not the vice versa.

When Jews were more powerful than Christians, they persecuted them. Later on, it was vice versa. But Christians were never genocidal, tho' they easily could have been.

I think it is go on even these days, when I read you and other Anti Semites creatures.

Jewish behaviour provokes anti-semitism. For example, their involvement over and over again in financial scandals and political corruption: Robert Maxwell, Lord Levy, David Abrahams, Isaac Kaye, etc, etc. The two most powerful lobbying groups in the UK are Labour Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel. Neither seeks to benefit Britain or Christianity.

15 January 2008 at 19:32  
Anonymous David said...

The problem with Phillips is that she views any compromise with the Palestinians as total defeat for Israel. So while she may have interesting things to say about the political narrative viewpoint about Israel, ultimately her way is a dead end, which limits the total usefulness of her conclusions.

15 January 2008 at 20:00  
Anonymous Fred said...

@ Ned Sherry.
Whether Christians have been genocidal towards Jews in the past must surely depend on your definition of a Christian. If you include Roman Catholics, try reading up about the Spanish Inquisition. More recently, have a look at the history of the Russian Pogroms, or even the National Socialists in Germany from 1930-45.

If Christianity is not Jewish, it is nothing. Whose Messiah is He?

15 January 2008 at 21:51  
Anonymous mary tudor said...

fred said....

or even the National Socialists in Germany from 1930-45.

the nazis were generally very anti-Christian

as well as obviously nuts

15 January 2008 at 22:25  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Once again Godwin's law prevails:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

15 January 2008 at 23:17  
Anonymous najistani said...

Totally off topic, but I recall several of your Grace's communicants asking in recent months whether there was any Koranic equivalent of Biblical 'Higher Criticism' .

They may be interested in this article (which exemplifies Godwin's law by involving Nazis, if not Herr Hitler (pbuh) himself):

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html

15 January 2008 at 23:35  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

NedSherry said: Christians were never genocidal

Ever heard of the so-called Reconquista in which Christians expelled Muslims from the Iberian peninsular?

The notion that one group of people can be consistently morally superior to another is rather hard to maintain. Labour sleaze, Conservative sleaze, people are equally despicable everywhere. See the Stanford prison Experiment for more details.

16 January 2008 at 11:39  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

NedSherry said: Christians were never genocidal

Ever heard of the so-called Reconquista in which Christians expelled Muslims from the Iberian peninsular?


Yes, I have. Have you ever looked 'genocidal' up in a dictionary? It appears not.

The notion that one group of people can be consistently morally superior to another is rather hard to maintain. Labour sleaze, Conservative sleaze, people are equally despicable everywhere.

Then you'd be happy to live anywhere in the world? North Korea, Australia, Syria, China, the UK, it's all the same?

See the Stanford prison Experiment for more details.

Yes, I've heard of that too. It shows that evil comes out more in some circumstances than in others. So the purpose of politics is to avoid, as far as possible, circumstances that allow evil to flourish. Letting lots of Muslims into the UK was a betrayal of that purpose. So was letting in certain other groups. No-one will need telling which group was responsible for the following:

A SCHOOLGIRL was raped by a gang who poured caustic soda over her body to destroy DNA evidence. The 16-year-old was left fighting for life with terrible burns from the drain-clearing chemical. She was under heavy sedation at a specialist burns unit last night as sickened police called the attack by five youths a new low. The gang beat the teenager before taking turns to rape her in an empty house in Tottenham, North London. One detective said: “After they had finished raping her, the gang poured caustic soda over the girl to try and get rid of DNA evidence. It was the most horrific thing imaginable and the girl sustained serious burns. This is about as low as it gets.” ... Anyone with information on the attack, said to have been by five black youths, should call Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article688118.ece

16 January 2008 at 16:06  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Fred said...

Whether Christians have been genocidal towards Jews in the past must surely depend on your definition of a Christian.

No, it depends on your definition of 'genocidal'. It's not another way of saying 'murderous' or 'persecutory'.

If you include Roman Catholics, try reading up about the Spanish Inquisition.

I have done, thanks, and it wasn't genocidal or anywhere near.

More recently, have a look at the history of the Russian Pogroms, or even the National Socialists in Germany from 1930-45.

Again, I'm familiar with them and by the correct definition of 'genocidal' and 'Christian', I am right in what I say above. You might like to have a look at the history of early communism and the Ukrainian famine, among other things.

If Christianity is not Jewish, it is nothing.

I would have thought it was still Christian.

Whose Messiah is He?

"Oy, not ours!"

16 January 2008 at 16:12  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Nedsherry,

So either the WW2 Germans were not Catholics or the Holocaust never happened. Which is it?

17 January 2008 at 08:47  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

So either the WW2 Germans were not Catholics or the Holocaust never happened. Which is it?

No, it's either the WW2 Germans were not Catholics or the Holocaust never happened or you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the box. I choose three.

The Holocaust(TM) was not conducted by Catholics but by Nazis. Nazis are not Catholics, nor are Catholics Nazis. If Catholics had wanted to wipe out European Jews, they had many centuries to do so and never did. It wasn't until Nazism came along that it was attempted. Nazism is obviously related to Christianity, but then so is communism, a mass-murdering ideology in which Jews have played a central role.

17 January 2008 at 18:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In just the same way as I hope Nobody equates me with the likes of Blair or Broown, So too should we not equate the ordinary Jew with their Zionist Elite.


The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion2.htm#PROTOCOL No. 1
http://www.illuminati-news.com/rosenthal-interview.htm
http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical-Idealism-Vienna-1925.php
Rockefeller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA&feature=related
The dancing Israelis
http://www.thebiggestsecret.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2228
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/balfour.htm
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm


http://www.planetquo.com
http://www.iamthewitness.com

1 February 2008 at 04:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older