Tuesday, May 31, 2011

David Cameron, Zionist and good friend of Israel, rejects the Jewish National Fund


Back in 2007, David Cameron was a proud, self-declared Zionist. In 2009, he told the Conservative Friends of Israel that his belief in and love for Israel was ‘indestructible’. He said the same in 2010: “In me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible.” As recently as this month, he told Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netenyahu: "Britain is a good friend of Israel and our support for Israel and Israel’s security is something I have described in the past and will do so again as unshakeable. We are strong friends of Israel."

It must therefore have come as something of a surprise to Binyamin Netanyahu – not to mention the Conservative Friends of Israel – that the Prime Minister has severed all links with one of Britain’s oldest Jewish Charities, the Jewish National Fund, for which both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown acted as patrons throughout their terms of office (and remain so).

The Jewish National Fund was established in 1901 to assist Jewish people who wished to settle in their ancient homeland, then part of the declining Ottoman empire. From 1939, the JNF ‘raised money to buy land and create the necessary infrastructure to rebuild the Jewish homeland’. This, of course, was at the height of the ‘Mandate for Palestine’ entrusted by the League of Nations to the British Government – under which the British were under legal obligation to facilitate the creation of a Jewish national homeland in the region, including permitting Jewish immigration (which, incidentally, the British betrayed).

Today, much of the work of the UK branch of the JNF funds infrastructure projects in the Negev – specifically agriculture, irrigation and education – on desert land previously considered virtually uninhabitable.

The Palestinian lobby has long hated the JNF, and has even accused it of war crimes – a charge vigorously rebutted by the Fund’s Chairman, Samuel Hayek. In a letter to The Guardian last autumn, Mr Hayek, wrote: "Our environmental and humanitarian work is not based on any political or religious affiliation, but rather on supporting Israel and its population – whatever their background. This was the case before the modern state of Israel was created and will continue to be the case long into the future."

The phrase ‘whatever their background’ is one which is frequently overlooked or conveniently ignored: out of a population of 6.7 million, about 1.3 million — 20 per cent — are non-Jews (approximately 1.1 million Muslims, 130,000 Christians and 100,000 Druze). It is also worth mentioning that Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; in fact, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote. Arabs even sit in the Knesset and have held various government posts; one has also been a Supreme Court judge.

And it was that Supreme Court which ruled in 2002 that the Israeli government may not allocate land based on religion or ethnicity, and may not prevent Arab citizens from living wherever they choose. It is also worth noting that in 1948 there was one Arab high school in the country: today, more than 300,000 Arab children are educated in Arab schools.

It is a curious ‘apartheid state’ which grants such rights to ethnic and religious minorities: how many Arab states grant such liberties to Jews?

A Downing Street spokesman insists that David Cameron’s decision to resign as a patron of the Jewish National Fund is merely part of a ‘wider review of the Prime Minister’s involvement with charities’, but no others have been specified. Israel’s opponents are now fighting like ferrets in a sack to claim this victory as their own, though The Guardian puts it unequivocally down to the ‘Stop the JNF Campaign’, reporting simply that the ‘Palestine Solidarity Campaign’ welcomed the decision: "It reflects the fact it is now impossible for any serious party leader to lend public support to racism," campaign director, Sarah Colborne, said in a statement.

The anti-JNF campaign have been spearheaded by anti-Israel MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn, who meets with Hamas officials and speaks alongside veteran terrorists like Leila Khaled , and continues to lobby for the Jewish National Fund’s charitable status to be revoked.

It is worth noting that the resignation as patron of this charity is not the only example of David Cameron’s actions belying his much-vaunted support for Israel. Since becoming Prime Minister he has made a speech in Turkey – one of Israel’s enemies in the region – in which he described Gaza as a ‘prison camp’. He also used the speech to pre-empt investigations into the Mavi Marmara affair to say that Israel’s boarding of the vessel was totally unacceptable whilst entirely ignoring the context of Hamas’ avowed intent to destroy the Jewish state and the constant shelling of Israeli cities, towns and villages which led to the closure of Israeli borders with the Hamas-led enclave.

The Prime Minister has also threatened that the UK will support the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state - presumably with the borders of the Palestinians’ choosing - unless ‘Israel engages seriously in a meaningful peace process’. He has imposed no conditions at all on the Palestinians, such as (for example) ceasing to use UK taxpayers’ money to fund incitement of Palestinian children to hate their Jewish neighbours. Instead, he has publicly welcomed the accord between the supposedly moderate Fatah and the openly terrorist Hamas, saying: "We have to take the positive, optimistic view that, although there will be all sorts of difficulties ahead, Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas should be a step forward and we must make sure that it is." The British Government still officially categorises Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

In an open letter to the Prime Minister, Melanie Phillips recently examined the widening gap between his pro-Israel rhetoric and the actions that are emboldening Israel’s enemies. At the end she issued a warning to the Prime Minister: ‘...if you are not very careful indeed history will judge that you re-established a direct line back to the malevolence of the British in Palestine; back to that terrible time when Britain so foully betrayed the Jewish people and became a party to genocide.’

It is one thing to be positive; to negotiate optimistically and to be a true friend to Israel to the point of being open and honest about her faults and failings. It is quite another to cave in to the demands of the Palestinian lobby, and thereby tarnish the reputation of a charity which has done nothing to merit the opprobrium that is heaped upon it by Israel’s enemies. As we move towards September, when Palestinians will seek UN support in their unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, one might hope that the Prime Minister will recall his speeches of 2007, 2009 and 2010: one cannot be a ‘Zionist’ or a ‘good friend of Israel’ if one is giving succour to the very genocidal fanatics who wish to cleanse the land of Jews and wipe Israel off the map.

95 Comments:

Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

All very (sadly) true.

So how long until you withdraw your support for the inveterate liar charlatan Cameron, and his lefty, liberal marxism?

31 May 2011 at 09:52  
Anonymous len said...

David Cameron going back on another'cast iron ' guarantee?. And this coming so soon after Obama`s visit to the UK.

Exactly what did they discuss,peace at any price?, the price of course being paid by Israel?.

David Cameron is being shown as a man not to be trusted.

31 May 2011 at 10:00  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

'It must therefore have come as something of a surprise to Binyamin Netanyahu – not to mention the Conservative Friends of Israel – that the Prime Minister has severed all links with one of Britain’s oldest Jewish Charities, the Jewish National Fund...'

But it doesn't come as a surprise to those of us who have observed Cameron in action since his apotheosis to the leadership of the Tory party. His entire style is to say one thing and to do another. He is a fraud, a turncoat and a sham.

31 May 2011 at 10:08  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Len and Mr Anabaptist, well said gentlemen. Cameron and Clegg must surely be two of the most shallow individuals to run the British government since, er, Tony Blair.

Where is the leader with real bottom?

31 May 2011 at 10:17  
Blogger English Viking said...

bluedog,

Leave Mandelson out of this!

31 May 2011 at 10:30  
Anonymous six day war said...

what the previous commentators said

31 May 2011 at 10:43  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

The Jewish National Fund was established in 1901 to assist Jewish people who wished to settle in their ancient homeland

This innocuous remark reveals your obsequious and distorted attitude towards Israel. If every ethnic, religious and cultural group wanted to return to their so called “ancestral homeland” after an absence of thousands of years the world would be in a state of continuous conflict. So what is so special about the Jews?

The creation of the state of Israel has been one of the world’s most enduring disasters and continues to be a catalyst for much of the world’s terrorism and misery. And what is at the heart of it, religions and the myths that support them?

When I became an atheist more than 50 years ago I naively dreamt of a future world where all religious claims would be regarded as quaint throwbacks to the age of ignorance. Little did I think that educated and intelligent people would still take such claims seriously?

That you continue to support the use these myths as an alternative for rational political judgement is shameful.

31 May 2011 at 10:54  
Anonymous Fran said...

Graham Davis

The Jewish connection with the Middle East is neither a 'religious claim' nor is the Jewish presence there recent.

Archeology reveals the Jewish history of the region with every turn of the pick and shovel. This historical evidence exists quite independently of the Holy Books which you hold in such contempt.

The evidence demonstrates that Hebrew speaking Jews have lived in the region as a whole and the Holy Land in particular continuously for at least 3000 years (which is more than can be said for the 'English' in the British Isles). Half of Israel's 6 million Jewish citizens trace their descent from ancient Jewish communities stretching from North Africa to Iran.

As for the other half, so what if they moved to Israel from Europe and elsewhere? How else were they to participate in that right which Israel's opponents take for granted where Palestinians are concerned - the right to self-determination in their place of origin?

To those who campaign for Palestinian national sovereignty whilst casting doubt on Jewish aspirations for national self determination I ask, "Why should I not see your position as racist?"

31 May 2011 at 11:15  
Anonymous Huldah said...

Your Grace

A friend, upon reading your post, commented

"I suspect there is a lot of 'sequencing' going on behind the scenes. (Liam) Fox's speech (at a London conference where he told an audience of supporters of Israel how much the Govt welcomed the accord between Hamas and Fatah, and envisaged a 2 state solution with a divided Jerusalem as the capital of each) was strangely aligned to Obama's, I think British foreign policy is being 're-adjusted' to the US position - what Hague is saying is also changing ... There is a big jigsaw already in place, and change and drip fed news starts to unveil it carefully over a prolonged period. That's why what Fox said a couple of weeks back was really intriguing.


It begs the question, what is really happening beneath the surface of news - an attempt to corner the Israeli negotiating position, perhaps? This example is Cameron trying to 'get more neutral'.

Although of course he's adept enough not to say that at a £500 / head CFI lunch, with about 60% of the parliamentary party in attendance. Then you get all the ra, ra, ra you'd expect."

Quite so.

31 May 2011 at 11:20  
Anonymous i albion said...

What English Viking said both threads.
Mandelson's bottom Ha Ha!

31 May 2011 at 11:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is quite another to cave in to the demands of the Palestinian lobby".

As if a BRITISH PM would give in to a middle-east group.
That could never happen , could it now? :-)

What's the shortest English word which has all five vowels in order?
Facetious!

Marcus Foxall

31 May 2011 at 11:35  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Fran said

To those who campaign for Palestinian national sovereignty whilst casting doubt on Jewish aspirations for national self determination I ask, "Why should I not see your position as racist?"

It is not racism because Jews are not a racial group, they a religio-cultural group.

To be racist is to regard one race as superior to another, which I do not.

Migration is one of the facts of human history, people have moved around the planet since the dawn of humanity and if you go back far enough race and ethnicity disappears altogether as we are all derived from those earliest humans who lived 4 million years ago, so time is not a relevant factor.

None of us has a right to any piece of this planet but countries do exist and we have to accept that. Their boundaries sometimes reflect geographic and cultural divides but more often are the result of colonial interference. The British Empire was responsible for much of conflict between peoples today because we divided up our conquests in a way which invariably ignored pre-existing ethnic, cultural and religious boundaries.

Although it is a recent legal entity Israel now exists. For it to continue to exist it must live in harmony with its Arab neighbours and to do that it cannot simply hang on to land that has captured. Any fair minded person can see this, which brings me to the point of my previous comment; headed by Cranmer there are very few fair-minded contributors to this blog. Despite your protestation to the contrary it is their religious beliefs that most here use to justify their support of Israel at any cost.

31 May 2011 at 11:58  
Anonymous len said...

GD,
Are you aware that the Jewish people actually purchased much of the land that is Israel.

31 May 2011 at 12:01  
Anonymous Ric said...

Well said, Arch! Rightly or wrongly, every withdrawal of support for Israeli policies by any public figure is seen by Israel's enemies as encouragement for them to destroy it. Sadly, Cameron is decaying from being the heir to Thatcher to being the new Heath - worst 20th century Tory PM. As for Graham Davis - what is so special about the Jews? Try Auschwitz you antisemite!

31 May 2011 at 12:05  
Blogger English Viking said...

GD,

You are incorrect in your (sickening) PC ideas of equality amongst the races.

Ethnic Jews consistently score highest in all forms of IQ tests, no matter the country they are carried out in, followed by East-Asians.

Black Africans are demonstrably stronger, faster and possess more stamina, on average, than Whites, for example.

As an atheist you have no problem seeing the significant differences in speed, power, intelligence and temperament that exist within the sub-species of the dog or cat world, for example, which (according to your theories) took millennia of Darwinism to create, yet you fail to see exactly the same differences within the various species (according to your theories again) of apes.

Either all men were created equal, or Darwin made them different, surely?

You seem to want to have your cake, and eat it?

31 May 2011 at 12:23  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Graham Davis @ 11.58 said, 'there are very few fair-minded contributors to this blog'.

Translation: 'You don't agree with me, you lot, and I'm right.'

May this communicant be so bold as to direct your gaze towards His Grace's video-clip post entitled 'Israel's defensible borders' of 24th May? It's a military appreciation that neatly highlights the Israeli dilemma. On the one hand there is no doubt that Israel seeks peace and has always done so. On the other hand if war is forced upon them, the Israelis do not wish to find themselves starting from an impossible position so that defeat is guaranteed. The video clip explains the importance of the landform in the defence of Israel. The Palestininian proposal, and Obama's proposal, threatens this military logic.

Think of the numbers. There are six or seven million Israelis, and if post-Mubarak Egypt turns against them they face 80 million foes. Odds like that mean that Israel only has to lose one major battle and it collapses.

The collapse of Israel would be a disaster for the West, not just for the Israelis.

Imagine Dunkirk times twenty.

31 May 2011 at 12:27  
Blogger Owl said...

Cameron, being just a puppet, has received his instructions from fellow puppet O'Barmy. The agenda is unfolding.
Israel is being offered so called solutions which it obviously can't accept (and survive) and it seems that the idea is create a piece of propaganda worthy of Göbbels. The intention seems to be that Israel will become the party blocking the peace process in the mind of the great unwashed. Our masters have decided on this.
Muslim agitation will be supported until a confrontation between them and the western world is inevitable.
Melanie Phillips letter was excellent.
I wonder if the powers that be have miscalculated. The support for Israel will now grow in everyone with even half a brain, which leaves out Mr. davis and other Fabian socialists.
I wonder what Atlas will have to say.
Excellent article YG.

31 May 2011 at 12:30  
Anonymous Fran said...

Graham Davis said

"It is not racism because Jews are not a racial group, they a religio-cultural group."

Try telling that to Jews whose relatives were arrested for having a Jewish Grandparent. Your statement is incorrect anyhow. Jewish people do have a racial identity. Not all, of course, are religious.

Interestingly, the term 'Palestinian' (meaning Arabs living in the Holy Land) was, I understand coined as recently as the 1960s by Yasser Arafat. Which is not to say that they do not have the right to self determination in their own state within borders mutually agreed between themselves and their Jewish neighbours.

"To be racist is to regard one race as superior to another, which I do not."

No. Being racist is to TREAT one ethnic group differently to another - to discriminate, in fact.

I am glad to hear you are not racist (although I didn't say you were). But my question still stands. If someone proposes that National self determination is good for one group of people but not another, why should I not see that position as racist - in that it discriminates between two groups to the disadvantage of one?

"Despite your protestation to the contrary it is their religious beliefs that most here use to justify their support of Israel at any cost."

Well I don't. So perhaps you'd like to make some coherent response to my points?

31 May 2011 at 12:34  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Len
Payments to whom and for what?

Ric
Cry anti-Semite! Last resort of a failed argument

English Viking
Surely you know that the variation of any attribute within any race is greater than the variation of any attributes between races

Bluedog
Israel has added to her own insecurity by settlement building. You cannot use that as a reason for consolidating the territorial gains made by conquest. In the world of Realpolitik of course Israel can expect some guarantee of improved security in exchange for the return of land but Israel’s viability as a State is not an inviolable right any more than is that of Palestine.

31 May 2011 at 13:01  
Blogger English Viking said...

GD,

So there are differences between the races then?

Thought so.

31 May 2011 at 13:11  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Interesting point your grace , hadnt realised it was a country where arab women could vote .

I think as re post , we are looking at change rather than abandonment ,the middle east must see the need to thaw and change for a better future. lets hope for once that they sort it out rather than the loss of wealth by conflict.

31 May 2011 at 13:26  
Anonymous Ric said...

@not a machine said 'hadn't realised it [Israel] was a country where arab women could vote'.
This is a message we need to drive home to all Israel's critics!
@Graham Davis: Antisemite? If it walks like a duck....

31 May 2011 at 13:46  
Anonymous IanCad said...

To Cameron;

“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

31 May 2011 at 13:48  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

The rights and wrongs of post 1948 politics to one side, is it really surprising that any political leader hoping to broker peace in the middle east would seek to distance himself from the Jewish National Fund?

Just consider the early history of Zionism. The birth of political Zionism in the late 19th century denied its goal was the creation of an independent "Jewish State". However, this was an untruth as covertly establishing such a state when a Jewish majority was achieved, was the intention from the outset. The 'Jewish National Fund' was one of the instruments used for channelling Jewish wealth into this. At that time a 'charity' with a hidden political objective.

Indeed Balfour Declaration disappointed Rothschild and others. He wanted no clause about protecting Palestians, a term used and widely understood at the time. His proposed wording was that:

"Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people."

The actual Declaration modified this and dented Zionist political aspirations:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of A national home for the Jewish people ... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of EXISTING NON-JEWISH communities in Palestine ..."

The League of Nations Mandate in 1922 followed the lead of the Balfour Declaration and gave authority to Britain to put it into effect.

2011 is 2011 and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the early and mid 20th century. The Jewish National Fund may be a worthy charity today. Its origins and history are not so clear cut.

In this context one can better understand the Prime Minister's decision. It doesn't signal appeasement, or that he's a friend of Hamas and an enemy of Israel.

31 May 2011 at 13:49  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Fran

There is no ethnic difference between Middle Eastern Arab and Jews therefore Jews do not have a separate racial identity.

Our default position should be to treat all people equally and therefore not to discriminate. It is reasonable to support both the Palestinians and the Israelis aspiration to nationhood. Well Israel got their nation Palestine didn’t. Perhaps we should have an Obama declaration that promises the Palestinians a nation state in much of the area that, since 1948, is Israel?

As your views are not influenced by religious belief I am surprised that you are so partisan, also I thought I had addressed you points.


English Viking

Of course there are differences between ethnic groups, some are black and others white, some tall, others short but that is irrelevant to this debate. Jews and Arabs are racially the same; the differences have been motivated by differing religious beliefs each based on unbelievable myths. Islam and Judaism agree on one thing and that it that they are right which shows how unreasoning is religious belief.

31 May 2011 at 14:00  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

The pre-1967 borders of Israel left almost all of the country open to artillery barrage, a point not lost on their attackers or on the generals who, acting on what is now known to be accurate intelligence, pre-empted an Arab strike intended to destroy Israel in 1968.

There is, at the very heart of the British establishment, a hatred of the Jews. Why else would the government knowingly allow the open sale of "The Protocols of Elders of Zion" in Islamic bookshops across London? Why else would they continue to kowtow to anti-Israeli oiks like Jeremy Corbyn? Or to the Guardianistas who hate the Jews because they can't patronise them as 'victims' they way they do the 'Palestinians' - a people and 'nation' that did not exist until Arafat, a pedophile of the worst sort, coined the phrase in the 1960s? Why is there no major effort to track down those who regularly desecrate Synagogues and Jewish graves? Why is this never front page news in the Guardian?

Simple, in the eyes of the 'establishment' in Britain all Jews are rich, secretive and oppressors of their lovely Arab chums ... who, being 'victims' are ripe for the 'patronage' of every bleeding heart among the coffee morning set in Islington.

Britain did not fulfill its UN Mandate (Carried over from the League of Nations ...) to create a Jewish homeland with secure borders. The British Government collaborated in the Holocaust by refusing to provide travel visas and documents to hundreds of Jews in Germany and Europe even though they had evidence of the systematic campaign that eventually led to the Death Camps. Why expect anything different from a government that has historically only ever tolerated the Jews as long as they remained invisible and didn't make waves.

I am not at all surprised Cameron has cut his ties with a Jewish Charity, it is completely consistent with with a ruling class that has consistently reneged on every promise ever made to the Jewish people.

31 May 2011 at 14:06  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Mr Davis said:-

"For it to continue to exist it must live in harmony with its Arab neighbours and to do that it cannot simply hang on to land that has captured."

This is simply fatuous. How the world has been divided up in the past will be the same in the future. It is not right to accept the legitimacy of existing national boundaries for every country on the planet except one - come off it GD.

Israel exists. It has a right to defend its existence the same as any other. It is a tiny democracy surrounded by vicious dictatorships as you well know, but Cameron applauds Hamas, whose charter contains a commitment to wipe it (and its people) from the map.

Why can't the Arab nations be weighted with the same responsibility you seem so keen to load on to Israel? but then -
not really PC that one is it?

This (except perhaps for Jerusalem's status) is less to do with religious matters and more to do with the global territorial ambitions of a revived 6th Century theo-political movement.

Your position sadly is I think, but yet another example of the successes of the left-wing's thought distortion of recent history and the present day culture of convenient reductionism.

31 May 2011 at 14:10  
Blogger English Viking said...

GD,

You're doing what you have accused others of in this very thread, you call the Jews a race, when you previously called them a 'religio-cultural group', and deny there are any genetic differences between them and the Arabs.

To be a Jew is to follow Judaism. French, German, Polish, black, yellow, whatever.

To be a Hebrew, well that is an entirely different matter.

Arabs and Hebrews are closely related, but racially distinct, however the problem is not really one of race, it is now a problem of religious differences, and the cultures and mind-sets those religions have produced in the respective peoples, that no amount of negotiating will solve. Eventually, one side or the other will either concede or be routed in battle. There is no alternative.

31 May 2011 at 14:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet again I am reminded why the world view of the atheist Graham Davies makes me shiver. I dread to think what terrible state we would be in if his "secular state" was put into operation- it would be worse than Stalin!

31 May 2011 at 14:31  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

"Eventually, one side or the other will either concede or be routed in battle. There is no alternative."

English Viking is right. If the Israelis are defeated and we have a Palestinian homeland, IT WILL BE YOU NEXT! And where would Graham Davies be in an Islamic Republic of Great Britain?

31 May 2011 at 14:33  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Fran @ 11:15 - I agree entirely with the main thrust of your argument, but you are quite wrong as to your comment about the 'English in the British Isles'-see modern genetic research for rebbutal of this misnomer.

On a wider note, it would appear that Cameron is falling-into-line with Obama.

I asked, in an earlier post, if the Queen had 'counted the silver' after the Obama visit; however, I had not thought that Cameron might then act as a 'fence' for Obama's spoils.

Lap-dog, lick-spittle or pure coincidence? Will Cameron support a return to Israel's 1949 borders too?

I had once thought that Blair might have been the antichrist; I'm beginning to think otherwise.

Cameron, Clegg and Obama, an unholy trinity?

31 May 2011 at 14:44  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Every thief needs a 'fence' to dispose of the proceeds of theft - often by pretending that the relevant items weren't stolen in the first place.

"Stolen? Nah mate. I'm offended at the very suggestion".

The JNF has the 'fence' function as regards stolen land on behalf of the zionist establishment. A dimension of this is memoricide - obliterating the physical evidence of ethnic cleansing with nice squeaky clean forest plantations, apartheid style housing developments etc.

"Arabs used to live round here? Nah mate, look around. You see any sign? Thought not"

Even Cameron can see the cat is out of the bag as regards what Israel is and what Israel does and that it doesn't look good for him to be seen encouraging it. It may be cynical but he gets it.

Unlike some.

31 May 2011 at 14:57  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

The Gray Monk said...

"'Palestinians' - a people and 'nation' that did not exist until Arafat, a pedophile of the worst sort, coined the phrase in the 1960s?"

So what was the Lord Rothschild referring to in the 1920's:

"Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people."

And the Balfour Declaration:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ..."

The League of Nations Mandate had NO mandate for seperate state; NO mandate for establishing borders; NO intention of an Israeli majority.

Do we refer to Arabs who live and have lived in Palestine as non-Jewish communities? I don't think so.

People living there would naturally be described as 'Palestinians'.

As for the rest, why is it that any criticism of Israel is met with the accussation of conspiracy and anti-semitism and the spectre of genocide is raised?

31 May 2011 at 14:58  
Anonymous Ahab`s leg said...

Cameron is indeed emulating the late unlamented Heath. In 1973 attcked by an almost overwhelming force of Egyptians Israel requested delivery of pre paid spare parts for its British Centurian tanks to be told that an embargo had been placed on all military equipment that had been purchased by Israel and had yet to be delivered. The result was the Merkava tank......a vastly superior piece of armour and the loss to this country of a lucrative export market. But not to worry we can sell to and bribe the Saudis to take all that we make.

31 May 2011 at 14:59  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Jeremy Hyatt: best you and t'others order your prayer-mats soonest; try ebay.

31 May 2011 at 15:05  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Oswin ....

Yawn. Witless sneers are no substitute for argument.

31 May 2011 at 15:16  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Using your logic, the Jews are Palestinians, as they were there in the 1920's too.

Oh I see, Jews don't count.

Ps Did you go to match? Yes or no.

31 May 2011 at 15:19  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

As matter of record I am not a lefty and cannot stand PC. If assumed these attributes are mistakenly extrapolated from my comments.

Anonymous said...

Yet again I am reminded why the world view of the atheist Graham Davies makes me shiver. I dread to think what terrible state we would be in if his "secular state" was put into operation- it would be worse than Stalin!

On the contrary; religiously generated conflict would be absent, universal humanist values that underlie all cultures given a chance might just prevail and political institutions would be based on a rational agenda and natural justice and not ideology, bigotry and discrimination. Sounds like nirvana to me but of course what you want is the nasty old status quo.

Jewish bag lady

I loath Islam even more than the other faiths but it will only be defeated by vigorously maintaining the democratic values enshrined in the secular State and not by swapping it for yet another bunch of faithheads.

English Viking

Like I said, go back far enough and we are all just one race, just follow the DNA, it doesn’t lie. Ironically the fairy story of Adam and Eve would suggest the same if it were true.

Jeremy Hyatt

You hit the nail on the head

31 May 2011 at 15:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GD says:

"When I became an atheist more than 50 years ago I naively dreamt of a future world where all religious claims would be regarded as quaint throwbacks to the age of ignorance."

followed by:

"...you continue to support these myths as an alternative for rational political judgement..."


LOL

You had a 'naive dream' of a world of 'rational judgement'.

Says it all really.

You're positively stunted by your own mythic vision of 'reason'.

31 May 2011 at 15:39  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Jeremy Hyatt: ''witless sneers'' are perhaps a stimulus-response to 'witless' appraisals?

Might I suggest a few early-nights; best not to yawn in public, it might be misconstrued as being a tad ill-bred, what?

31 May 2011 at 15:46  
Blogger Gnostic said...

David Cameron, cast iron sh*tbag. My contempt for this cretin grows by the day.

31 May 2011 at 16:04  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Anonymous (don’t you have a name?)

Reason is a method used to make sense of the world by validating explanations rather than just simply believing something because you want it to be so. Mythic vision of reason just doesn’t make any sense.

31 May 2011 at 16:05  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Viki

MYOB

There is a clear distinction drawn in the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate between Jewish people and non-Jewish people. I don't have a difficulty accepting this. Note - not races, a hideous, outdated concept, but people.

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ..."

31 May 2011 at 16:24  
Anonymous Fran said...

Graham

Firstly, to disagree with you is not to be 'partisan: it is taking a different point of view. And clearly you did not address my points. I'm astonished that you should think you had.

"There is no ethnic difference between Middle Eastern Arab and Jews therefore Jews do not have a separate racial identity." Try telling that to Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of Israel who treat her Jewish citizens as foreign colonialists. And what evidence have you for this assertion.

That Jewish people have a distinct culture, language and alphabet - which can be traced back for 3,000 years in the archaeology of the Holy Land suggests a distinct ethnic identity. And their neighbours certainly believe they are a 'racial' group distinct from themselves.

"Well Israel got their nation Palestine didn’t."

There's a simple reason for this; Jewish leaders accepted the UN borders of 1947 and Arab leaders didn't. So the lack of a Palestinian state must be laid firmly with the Arabs. That the Jewish State now extends beyond those borders is entirely due to continued Arab aggression. The Palestinians can only dream of the state which they COULD have had if only their leaders at the time had not been so greedy and arrogant.

31 May 2011 at 16:42  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Civil and religious rights do not amount to a state these mainly immigrant Arabs never had.

And ♥ ♥ ♥ to all the righteous who stand for Israel.

Read Melanie on Cameron drinking the Kool-Aid.

31 May 2011 at 16:42  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Fran said...

"Jewish leaders accepted the UN borders of 1947."

In point of fact they didn't, neither did they agree to Jerusalem coming under the jurisdiction of the UN. That's why the bombed British soldiers!

31 May 2011 at 16:55  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Nothing has been done to prejudice the rights of those people, that's why there are about 20 times more of them, living in Israel, in a democracy today than there were in the '20's.

31 May 2011 at 17:11  
Anonymous Quinn Dexter said...

I would have thought that Graham Davies would love Israel, given that it is a secular democratic state and was founded by western european jewish socialists...

31 May 2011 at 17:11  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

One wonders what Jeremy Hyatt's, Dodo's and Graham Davies suggestion is for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict? The extermination of the Jews perhaps?

31 May 2011 at 17:13  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Jewish Bag Lady...

Justice. Now what's so complicated aboutv that?

31 May 2011 at 17:15  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

They want Turkey in the EU.

Its that simple, the Turks are going to be Eurabias southern flank. Controlling the North African zone in a role much like their former Ottoman Empire.

31 May 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger Ariadne said...

That's exactly it, Jewish Bag Lady. The peace of death for Jews.

But this time Jews are not unarmed.

31 May 2011 at 17:25  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

And whats more the Rabbis of Neturei Karta are behind it.

They want Noahide Laws.

31 May 2011 at 17:25  
Anonymous Springer said...

@GD (formerly anon) apologies - pressed 'publish' before I realised.

"Mythic vision of reason just doesn’t make any sense."

Quite so. But it didn't stop your naive dream did it:

You had a "naive dream" (a mythic notion if ever there was) of a world brought to peace through reason.

Such metaphors as 'naive dream' are never innocent. You simply fail to see you own contradiction and therefore ascribe it to everyone else: it is 'they' who are the dreamers, caught in an illusion of wishful thinking. (In fact it is you)

"Reason is a method used to make sense of the world by validating explanations rather than just simply believing something because you want it to be so."

Evidence validates, not reason.

You use the word 'reason' as though it were a fixed category of thought (or even proof). It isn't. Reason has many facets - not least belief: scientists routinely speak of having 'reason to believe' - but they must then seek evidence.

You see, I'm agnostic. And what I find offensive, truly offensive, is when the 'secular' argument hijacks scientific practice (my particular love) to try and substantiate it's own program.

Science is not a hammer with which to beat religion.

Your "dream" of a world of reason is exactly that: it is an Utopian Vision. You arrogantly assume that this vision fails to come to fruition because of the ignorance of 'others'.

You are wrong.

It fails to come to fruition because it has no evidential basis.

Scientists have spent the best part of 400 years wrestling with this point. And my god do they fight over it.

Do you know of the exchanges between Plank and Mach? Pauli and Dirac? the accustaions of 'prophecy', 'excommunication', 'God-likeness'?

Ilya Prigogine (Chaos Theory) is today still accused, by some, of having turned 'mystic'!!

The footing to which you seem to aspire for the world - ie. perfect, determinate 'reason' - has never been more hotly contested than it is today (ie. within science itself).

Einstein's 'God doesn't play dice' is still a position that hangs over us. And why did Planck call physics a 'vocation'?

None of this is settled.

The perfect platform of 'reason' remains a dream, or perhaps a nightmare; we don't know which, because it isn't determined; but you simply believe in it. Which, by the way, is naive!!

31 May 2011 at 17:31  
Anonymous Samuel Aleksandrovich said...

"Justice" says Jeremy Hyatt. Others called it "the final solution".

31 May 2011 at 17:32  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Also for Dodo: What about turning the Vatican into a multi faith centre? That chimes well with 2011, whereas the state of the vatican (which along with Iran) is run by clerics is so, well 12th century. Don't you think?

31 May 2011 at 17:34  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Samuel, when another one referred to the Noachide laws I suspect his real referrent was the Nuremberg ones.

31 May 2011 at 17:38  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Samuel Aleksandrovich - don't feel the need for a measured and reasonable response. Go for some hysterical drivel. You know you want to.

On reflection, it's mostly a waste of time arguing with the Israel lobby. Israel will not do justice to the Palestinians because it sees the moral force of the arguments so to do. It will do so - kicking and screaming every inch of the way - because it is made to.

Bring it on.

31 May 2011 at 17:42  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The meetings between Rabbis and Turks can be found on youtube along with discussions of Noahide.

Why bring Nuremberg into it, just deal with the truth and stop living in the past. Britain is being destroyed by traitors, in collaboration with Jews and Muslims.

In line with EU/UN depopulation Agendas.

31 May 2011 at 18:24  
Blogger Ariadne said...

It's sad to see ignorance and bigotry on this blog where there could be Christianity.

Neturei Karta

31 May 2011 at 18:32  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mrs Bag Lady

One wonders what Jeremy Hyatt's, Dodo's and Graham Davies suggestion is for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict? The extermination of the Jews perhaps?

One does not need to speculate when one can enquire.

Mr.s Hyatt, Dodo and Davies,

What do you think is the solution for the troubles in the middle east? Take into consideration the hostility of Israel's neighbours and the arab consensus that she should cease existence.

31 May 2011 at 18:34  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Its sad to see British ignorance of their true Japhetite roots.

Its sad to see claims of bigotry without any evidence.

I have no axe to grind, just an open mind, prepared to question and seek truth.

I would hope to be wrong, life would be nice if I could bury my head and shout bigot.

Only its like putting your fingers in your ears and making silly noises when you don't want to hear the truth.

31 May 2011 at 18:49  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Lakester91 said...
"Mrs Bag Lady
Mr.s Hyatt, Dodo and Davies,
What do you think is the solution for the troubles in the middle east? Take into consideration the hostility of Israel's neighbours and the arab consensus that she should cease existence."

The solution will be found eventually through political discussion and compromise. Just like Northern Ireland and we're heading for it with Afghanistan and dialogue with the Taliban that is being mooted.

Failing that, there will be a bllod bath. Israel seems fixated on believing the latter is inevitable as do Hamas. That's why political leaders in the West are trying to move the discussion on and asking Israel to be more moderate in its demands.

"War" as they say, "is an extention of politics."

Although I dispute the morality of political Zionism and the construction of secular Israel in 1948, it is now a nation state and entitled to defend itself. It also has a responsibility to seek a peaceful settlement with its neighbours.

This is neither bigotry nor ignorance; nothing to do with the holocaust or Nuremberg rallies; and nothing to do with the Vatican City.

So Bag Lady you have my views - what's your answer?

31 May 2011 at 19:25  
Anonymous Fran said...

Dodo wrote

"In point of fact they (Jewish leaders) didn't, neither did they agree to Jerusalem coming under the jurisdiction of the UN. That's why the bombed British soldiers!"

Er, yes, Jewish leaders DID agree to the UN borders, even though they weren't exactly advantageous -Jewish leaders were always open to compromise, unlike their Arab counterparts.

31 May 2011 at 19:37  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Great post, Your Grace. Keep up the good work. I've long had my suspicions about CallmeDave, but those suspicions are being confirmed day by day...

What is happening is fulfilling Biblical prophecy. The Lord has told us beforehand that this would happen. We shouldn't be alarmed, just fix our eyes on Jesus.

31 May 2011 at 19:39  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Migration, so harmless. Which politicians do not have an eye on recent immigrants?

In recent years, European advocates for mass immigration have taken up the euphemism “migration” to describe the process they champion. The abbreviated version of the word is less freighted with negative connotations, and serves to anesthetize the general public by evoking images of people who move from place to place occasionally — maybe seasonal farm workers or pastoral nomads — but certainly not a massive influx of hostile aliens.

In other words, nothing like the reality of 21st-century Europe.


Elsewhere in that blog someone suggests that our Islamisation will end up as a ghastly kind of shariah-compliant Communism.

And meanwhile the London Borough of Lambeth is short of 70,000 primary school places for children.

Cameron isn't playing to the oil-rich states only and Ed West thinks that nothing can be done about immigration unless we leave the EU.

Your Grace, Professor Steven Plaut attacks the "apartheid" calumny beautifully.

31 May 2011 at 19:39  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Fran, pure gold.

Arabs rejected a state 4 times, beginning in 1937.

As for the Arab valuation of Jerusalem, there's a video.

31 May 2011 at 19:53  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Ariadne said...
"Arabs rejected a state 4 times, beginning in 1937."

Details?

Jewish population of Palestine in the 1880's - negligible. Following immigration waves in 1881, 1904-14, 1919-23, 1924-29 and the 1930's, the population was about 33% of Palestine.

Why would the Palestinian people agree to a seperate Israeli state for a minority of inhabitants? A state that was a construct of the United Nations in 1947?

Originally the plan supported by the international community from the 1920's was for a Jewish 'homeland'. Now a state was the express aim and, in reality, always had been.

Britain withdrew because the Mandate was impossible to implement and because both the Jewish and Arab peoples failed to agree. How could they? Jewish terrorist attacks on Britain had taken place since 1945 and it was clear both sides had to be left to resolve the situation by arms if need be.

Without some compromise the situation will be resolved once again by force and Israel is the superior power in the region at the moment.

Anguished Soul believes was is happening is fulfilling Biblical prophecy so no need to do anything!

Israel - help find a peaceful solution and go to the table willing to compromise. It's in your's and the world's best interest.

31 May 2011 at 21:31  
Blogger Owl said...

Dodo,

Until such time that the Arab nations and militant Islamists stop their rhetoric to annihilate the State of Israel and it's population, I would suggest that Israel go to the negotiations with a Kalashnikov at the ready.

Oh, a search of the Arab attending to remove their suicide bombers might be a good idea too.

I just can't figure out if our secular socialists are just naive, completely stupid or downright evil.

31 May 2011 at 22:23  
Blogger English Viking said...

Owl,

Israeli's would never rely on Arab-loving Ruskis for their weaponry.

The IMI Galil is the much superior weapon of choice for the IDF.

31 May 2011 at 22:42  
Blogger Owl said...

Viki,

I bow to your superior knowledge of weaponry.

31 May 2011 at 22:52  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dodo

I am sure you will believe the ghastly Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1937/jul/08/israel

After a transitional period it is proposed to set up two sovereign independent States - an Arab State composed to Trans-Jordan and that part of Palestine allotted to the Arabs, and a Jewish State consisting of the part of Palestine allotted to the Jews.

You can have fun looking up 1947, 2001 and 2008 yourself.

As for your pre-Mandate "Palestine", please provide your map.

It would also benefit you to remember that the "Palestine people" were invented in the 1960s.

That plea to Israel is an outrage. Israelis will not compromise themselves into their graves.

31 May 2011 at 23:17  
Blogger Ariadne said...

I ♥ The Gray Monk. "Telling it like it is"!

A lot of people like to quote what Britain did for Jews but there was a lot more that Britain did against Jews.

That "but" needs to be remembered.

1 June 2011 at 00:29  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Ariadne said...
"Dodo
As for your pre-Mandate "Palestine", please provide your map."

Actually I was quoting the Balfour Declaration written in part by one of the founding Zionists, Lord Rothschild. Mind you he didn't want "a" homeland, he wanted "the" homeland and wanted no protection for non-Jewish people.

Just to remind you:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ..."

As you well know the Arab lands were crudely divided by the Allies after WW1 as they sought to benefit from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Lines on a map to suit the Allies vested strategic and colonial interests.

Can you not imagine the indignity of this for the Arab peoples and then to have Jewish immigrants landing on their shores in waves from the 1880's with the finacial backing of Western Zionists?

"It would also benefit you to remember that the "Palestine people" were invented in the 1960s."

Maybe. But if you are living in the country designated 'Palestine' then surely you are a 'Palestinian people'? What is your issue with this? Over 1,000,000 non-Jewish people (Palestinian people) living in Palestine were displaced, some forcibly, as a result of the Israeli illegal unilateral declaration of independance in 1947and the war that followed.

A Jewish legal claim to an Israeli state was thin in the 1920's. Even after mass immigration, facilitated by the Zionist organisations and the mass purchase of land, the population in 1940 was 33% of the total.

No. There have been injustices on both sides and Israel needs to face up honestly to its history. By stealth and wealth it moved people into Palestine and by stealth and wealth it has expanded 'settlements'.

By the way, I don't read the Guardian and I'm not anti-semetic. I also believe that now we're in 2011 Israel has established itself as a state and has a right to defend itself - within moral bounds. It should also seek peace and stop being so belligerent and confrontational.

1 June 2011 at 00:49  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Cameron is simply re-positioning himself to recognise Fatah-Hamas as the Government of a "State" and to turn a blind eye as Hisbollah fires off its 10,000 missile stockpile.

The Sarkozy-Cameron Plan for a Victory Tour of Benghazi will presage a New Commonwealth of North African States affiliated with the EU.

There is a New Euro-Imperialism under way

1 June 2011 at 08:58  
Blogger William said...

"No. There have been injustices on both sides and Israel needs to face up honestly to its history. By stealth and wealth it moved people into Palestine and by stealth and wealth it has expanded 'settlements'."

Double standards I'm afraid. Most countries on this planet have been created by stealth and wealth and those that haven't have been created by invasion and/or mass-murder. Perhaps you would like to explain what a "non-Guardian reader" has against either stealth or wealth anyway.

"It should also seek peace and stop being so belligerent and confrontational."

How do you seek peace with someone whose ultimate aim is to kill you?

1 June 2011 at 09:14  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

William said...
"Perhaps you would like to explain what a "non-Guardian reader" has against either stealth or wealth anyway."

Dishonesty and exploitation, friend, dishonesty and exploitation! Maybe it is the way of the world but it has its consequences.

Just because I don't read the Guardian doesn't mean I support capitalism - and no I'm not a socialist either.

Political Zionism from the beginning was dishonest about its ultimate intentions. To use the wealth of the likes of Rothchild to sneek Jewish people into Palestine and purchasing land through the JNF is acting in bad faith. Now they are holding onto land that isn't theirs. No wonder the Arabs don't trust the Israelis.

Both sides are at fault and both sides have to consider the point of view of the other.

1 June 2011 at 12:34  
Blogger William said...

"Both sides are at fault and both sides have to consider the point of view of the other."

I agree.

The fact that one side seeks the annihilation of the other is probably the main consideration. The Arabs demonstrated their intentions to Israel during the Six Day War. They demonstrate them today with their rhetoric. They are currently killing their own on the streets of several middle eastern countries. It doesn't take much to imagine what they would do, given half a chance, on the streets of Israel.

Israel is defending itself in full consideration of the point of view of the other. It would be immoral to do otherwise.

1 June 2011 at 13:10  
Blogger Ariadne said...

William, you speak sense.

Dodo, you can't get far on woolly and bigoted statements. Define "Palestine".

There is masses of truthful material online. No-one has to take the British press version of anything.

It's clear that your human sympathy is delinquent. As far as I know the first organisation to take notice of the plight of Jews in early 19c Jerusalem was the Church of Scotland. Why, therefore, when that plight was drawn to the attention of Jews in the Diaspora would Jews elsewhere not seek to help?

And why support the Nazi "Grand Mufti" of Jerusalem? His Waffen SS Muslim troops were so brutal they shocked the German Nazis.

1 June 2011 at 16:07  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo,
Do you believe what scripture says about Gods plan for the Jews and Israel?
Do you know what it is?

Do you know the Lords Prayer?
Are you familiar with this verse from it?

"your will be done,"

(This is not a trick question)

1 June 2011 at 16:24  
Blogger Ariadne said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 June 2011 at 16:30  
Blogger Ariadne said...

This is a video from USA which shows how to boycott Israel properly.

It is in line with His Grace's lists above from Ray Cook.

1 June 2011 at 16:33  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"Dodo,
Do you believe what scripture says about Gods plan for the Jews and Israel?
Do you know what it is?
Do you know the Lords Prayer?
Are you familiar with this verse from it?
"your will be done,"
(This is not a trick question)"

It is not entirely clear precisely what interpretation to place on the various biblical texts regarding the future role of the Jewish people in salvation history. And it would be dangerously speculative to simply see the existance of a Jewish State as a sign of the end times, assume a final confrontation is inevitable soon and simply wait for Armaggedon!

If you're referring to the Old Testement you'll know the verses are open to interpretation and there is scholarly disagreement about whether the tenses are past, present or future.

If Revelations, then if you've cracked the 'code' to that then you're way ahead of me! It foretells a final conflict between good and evil, Christ and Satan, but again whether it is a road map of events capable of human comprehension and specific on geography is open to debate.

God's will will be done. That's just the way it is. We can choose to cooperate or obstruct. Can we actually accurately predict the detail from scripture? For millenia Judaism waited the Messiah and when He arrived, despite all their devotion to scripture, they failed to notice!

The death of Christ was predestined, as were the roles of Judas and Pilot. That doesn't mean their behaviour was unacceptable. God's will was done but it included God's foreknowledge of the actions of sinful men.

The return of the Jewish people to their homeland is accepted by some denominations as one of the inevitable events of history and a sign of Christ's return. As I understand this reading of scripture, the Jews are also to accept Christ before His return.

How can you be sure the agnostic, secular State of Israel, established in 1948, is part of God's plan? It could just be man attempting to force God's Hand. Afterall, if you know the history of early Zionism then you'll be aware of the irreligious forces behind it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I believe it very dangerous to base political decisions on disputed understandings of what is often figurative and allegorical scripture.

What did Jesus say about such speculation?

"But of that day and hour no one knows: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone."

1 June 2011 at 19:11  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

typo ....
that doesn't mean their behaviour was acceptable (not unacceptable) ...

1 June 2011 at 19:15  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Ariadne said...
"Dodo, you can't get far on woolly and bigoted statements. Define "Palestine"."

You'll have to ask the Rothschilds - they used the term in the early 20th century. You could also research the Allies division of Ottoman land after WWI if you want.

Are you actually denying any right of people, other than Jewish people, to live in Palestine? Sounds like it if you don't acknowledge there is a Palestinian people.

Any disgreement that poor old Israel is a victim surrounded by nasty Arabs is seen whooly and bigoted!

1 June 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dodo, I was asking you!

This is from one of the most intelligent bloggers I know of. Daniel Greenfield blogging as Sultan Knish.

Israel pursuing the mirage of permanent peace and brotherhood is one of the dumber things they have ever encountered. There is no such thing in the region. The Arabs hate the Persians. The Sunnis hate the Shiites. The Egyptians hate the Saudis. Bedouin clans that live side by side for centuries have blood feuds that have gone on for centuries. Look at Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, any Arab country under a microscope and you see a whirling mass of smaller entities who only stop fighting when a stronger force gets in the way.

The link.

Reality.

1 June 2011 at 19:58  
Anonymous len said...

Must not feed the troll. I am giving myself a hundred lines EV.

1 June 2011 at 21:55  
Blogger Ariadne said...

len, do you mean Dodo the troll?

1 June 2011 at 22:06  
Blogger English Viking said...

Ariadne,

Yes, he does.

Apart from being a liar, a cat-lick (usually synonymous with liar), a liberal and a tit, Dodo is a troll.

1 June 2011 at 22:55  
Anonymous God said...

Ariadne, English Viking, Len, The Last Dodo is what one used to call "a useful idiot" spouting his left-liberal-atheist-Pro Nazi rot around this august blog. I am not sure which Bible he reads- possibly the Koran??- but it isn't the one whot I wrote!

1 June 2011 at 22:58  
Blogger Ariadne said...

I believe you. God. Dodo is shallow forbye. That's probably what makes a troll a troll.

I highly recommend the Sultan Knish piece I linked above. I'm sure a lot of it will seem familiar.

1 June 2011 at 23:13  
Blogger Ariadne said...

English Viking, does "cat-lick" originate from what parents say to children?

2 June 2011 at 00:04  
Blogger English Viking said...

Ariadne,

I dare not tell you what my parents taught me concerning all things Popey.

His Grace would probably ban me on the spot.

Needless to say, they were correct, even though they were not themselves Christians. BTW Today is the 26th anniversary of my father's death.

PS For the origins of 'cat-lick', see ' The Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass'.

Construe nothing from the fact that I am familiar with it, anymore than you would from the fact that I am familiar with the Apocrypha.

2 June 2011 at 01:04  
Blogger Ariadne said...

English Viking, I don't know enought to construe.

A thought for your father: "the prayers of the heart are especially precious to God".

2 June 2011 at 10:56  
Blogger Charles Stuart Iddesleigh said...

The Arabs are allowed Arab schooling and freedom to live anywhere in Israel is for the reason that they are Jewish, it would be nice to not misinform people and state that the Arabs living in Israel with such freedom are in fact Jewish and not Muslim.

Gaza and the West Bank are like prison camps, during the 2009 Gaza siege even medical supplies and food was not allowed in the city, so for you to make such comments as "would any Arab state grant Jewish people such liberties as Jewish schools and freedom to live anywhere in the land" is not correct for its hypocrisy and for the fact that the Arabs are Jewish and not Muslim.

26 April 2012 at 00:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older