Posted on 01/17/2012 3:44:25 PM PST by Amerisrael
UK Foreign policy loons: David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Tony Blair.
Nick Clegg, the UK's second string dhimmi Prime Minister, belched out the UK's ignorance and foreign policy dhimmitude with the following vitriolic charge of 'vandalism' against Israel:
["Once you've placed physical facts on the ground that makes it impossible to deliver something that everyone has for years agreed is the ultimate destination... it is an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise on which negotiations have taken place for years and years and years," Clegg said, referring to settlement construction.
Clegg was speaking alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was also holding talks in London with Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague – both of whom have previously expressed concern about settlements.
"The continued existence of illegal settlements risks making facts on the ground such that a two-state solution becomes unviable," Clegg said]
England, along with most [liberal dhimmi] Europeans want to impose the establishment of an Islamist state in the heart of Israel's own land of Judea and Samaria.
All the members of the so-called Quartet, -the U.S., UN, EU, and Russia, are in willful ignorance of previously established international law:
["The “Road Map” vision, as well as continuous pressure from the “Quartet” (U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia) to surrender parts of Eretz-Israel are contrary to international law that firmly call to “encourage … close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” It also requires the Mandatory for “seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the government of any foreign power.”]
See the San Remo Conference and the Mandate for a Jewish National Home .
["The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5
The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community in blissful unawareness of Arab opposition to the very notion of Jewish historical rights in Palestine. The Mandate weathered the test of time: On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form."]
On the contrary it is the UK that has had a history of perpetrating political and foreign policy 'vandalism' against Jews and Israel:
[British policy on Israel slammed by top British historian.]
See also "Israeli settlements-Are they Legal?"
The English were always slighly anti-semetic. Even so, I don’t think the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 helped matters any.
The English were always slighly anti-semetic. Even so, I don’t think the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 helped matters any.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
It helped matters greatly. It destroyed British administrative and intelligence files, thereby making it impossible for them to continue governing, so they had to leave, and take their White Paper blockade of Jewish immigrants with them, using a minimum of bloodshed and a maximum loss of face for the British Mandate.
Did this lessen or exacerbate anti-Semitic feelings among Britons? Probably the latter at that time, but that’s academic. You can’t win a revolution without ticking off those against whom you revolt. How long were there anti-Yank sentiments in Britain after the American revolution?
The British have been at times a force for freedom and democracy in the world. When they haven’t directly promoted it and instead opposed it, they still struck a blow for it. Just look at all the great revolutionaries they’ve inspired:
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams, Muhandas K. Ghandi, Menahem Begin and Jomo Kenyatta. They all successfully fought British tyranny and later befriended the British parliamentary democracy. Lin Yutang (Between Tears and Laughter, Doubleday, 1940) said that the Briton is a splendid fellow, so long as he is at home in Britain, rather than out ruling the world. At home he is a philosopher, a democrat, a scholar and a gentleman. Abroad in a pith helmet and pack, in his finest hours he’s a hero, but other times not. In Mandatory Palestine he was not, and therefore was driven out by heroes soon after he heroically beat the Huns and Nips.
Excellent post—Thanks!
you should have also written that the Britts were honor bound to create Israel for the debt owed to a jewish chemist that created a synthetic acetone during WWI (as they promised) There is a real question about whether the withdrawal was, we’re forced out or “our on your own, your paid”.
BTW its time for the jews to become much bigger a**holes and start annexing Gaza, Goldan Heights, and Jerusalem, land for terror attacks and the continued teaching of kill the jews by the Palis.
Jerusalem is already annexed, I think. Begin annexed the Golan, but the “international community,” including the US, refused to recognize it. As for Ghaza, what ever would we do with it at this point? Both Ghaza and Judah and Samariah should have been annexed in June of 1967, but since we didn’t then, and instead entered into stupid agreements with the Palis, we’re now up a gum tree. Why’d we do that to ourselves? How do we get off it?
actually 1/2 is annexed. The other 1/2 is to be the palis capital. The first jew threat should be, stop the hate speech, and teaching or we take (X)km-squared per terrorist incident. 1 rocket say (1000M)2, 1 dead isreali (10000m)2, 1 dead child (100000m)2. Until there is a downside to teaching your kids to be suicide bombers, peace will never happen.
‘It helped matters greatly. It destroyed British administrative and intelligence files, thereby making it impossible for them to continue governing, so they had to leave, and take their White Paper blockade of Jewish immigrants with them, using a minimum of bloodshed and a maximum loss of face for the British Mandate.’
Amazing (and frankly disgusting) that you can characterise several years of terrorism by not one but two Jewish terrorist gangs (the Irgun and the Stern, the latter of whom was so extreme that it even met with Nazi representatives in 1941) as a ‘minimum of bloodshed’. The latter so extreme one of the first acts of the new Israeli govt in 1948 was to immediately outlaw it!.
The murder and bombing of British soldiers and civilians, the murder and bombing of British, Jewish and Arab civilians, the capture, torture, murder and boobytrapping of the bodies of two unarmed British soldiers (Sargeants Paice and Martin). The King David bombing killed as many Jews as it did British. The murder by the Stern Gang in Sept 1948 of a WW2 hero who helped to SAVE thousands of Jews (Count Bernadotte of Sweden). And I havent even mentioned Deir Yassin (which certainly happened, even if the Arabs possibly exaggerate what happened)
The Irgun and Stern gang were such ‘heroes’ to the Jews that major Jews like Ben Gurion and the Haganah worked with the British to hunt them down. Why?. Because most Jews in Palestine, contrary to post 1948 myth, did not agree with the terrorism of the two groups and supported a peaceful settlement.
‘In Mandatory Palestine he was not, and therefore was driven out by heroes soon after he heroically beat the Huns and Nips.’
Heroes my arse. They were terrorists, plain and simple. And they would probably admit it and justify it. And that is at least honest. Instead of trying to make them freedom fighters or heroes. The Irgun and Stern gang shot, murdered, bombed and assassinated their way to a new state.
Did Israel need to exist?. Of course.
Did these groups need to murder their way to it?. Never.
They are no more heroes than the murderers of the IRA. They were frankly no better than the vile groups that have attacked Israel for decades, the murderous scumbags of the Hamas, Hezbollah, Black September et al.
Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. Be it Jewish, Irish, American, British or Mongolian.
The idea that what they did was justifiable and they werent terrorists but those who attack Israel since 1948 are terrorists is a nonsense.
As if to admit what they did was wrong and evil is somehow to be anti-semitic and against Israel. As if all that is done by a group must be defended and justified. It takes moral courage to say that what was done by ‘your people’ was sometimes wrong. Even evil and brutal.
Many Irish, inc many Catholic and Nationalist Irish in both NI and the ROI, would without hesitation tell you that the IRA were evil, wrong, didnt speak for them. As many Protestants would equally say for the UDA, UVF etc.
That dosent diminish or negate either their Irishness, their identity, their morality or the justice of their political and cultural ideas. If anything, it enhances, as it shows they support only ideas that can be achieved via peaceful means.
So why not Jews and Israelis (actually the most vehement of Irgun-Stern defenders tend to be Jews OUTSIDE Israel)?. To say the Irgun and Stern were wrong, even evil, in what they did would take NOTHING away from the righteousness of the case for a Jewish state in 1948. NOTHING.
‘How long were there anti-Yank sentiments in Britain after the American revolution?’.
In fact, there had been much sympathy and support for the ‘rebels’ grievances in Britain.
Not really.
Any anti-semitism has been confined to the fringes: either neo-nazi groups/fascist groups OR to a section of the upper class. And in modern times, to a section of the left.
The average English working class and middle class has never been anti-Jewish, in fact many tenets of Judaism and Jewish identity have been admired. Many British icons and ‘national treasures’, from shops and businesses to entertainers and academics, have been Jewish, some very open about it, others to whom it wasnt a major part of their identity.
And never forget that whilst Europe embraced Fascism or Communism, Britain rejected in the 1930’s the antisemitic fascism of Oswald Mosley and has done so to the present day, with the likes of the BNP and neo-nazi parties. England and Britain as a whole has always rejected that sort of naked, unpleasant racism/antisemitism.
I don’t doubt what you say. But many British (especially the British media) seem to be virulently pro-Palestinian and biased against Israel. Some people (primarily on the Left) say that you have to seperate opposition to Israel from generic anti-Semetism. But hat is hard to do, especially when the anti-Israel crowd so easily lapses into anti-Semetic diatribes without even realizing it.
Most British people actually couldnt care less about Palestine. Most British people are sick of it after seeing it for decades every night on the TV news and in the newspapers.
Scotsman, we’ve been over this and over this. At least stop bringing up issues I’ve already addressed. Either my answers satisfied you, or they did not. But I see no reason why I must be compelled to repeat them.
“Amazing (and frankly disgusting) that you can characterise several years of terrorism by not one but two Jewish terrorist gangs (the Irgun and the Stern, the latter of whom was so extreme that it even met with Nazi representatives in 1941) as a ‘minimum of bloodshed’. The latter so extreme one of the first acts of the new Israeli govt in 1948 was to immediately outlaw it!.”
I was referring solely to the destruction of the King David Hotel, which, since it put an end to British rule with one master stroke, rather than a protracted war of attrition. That was done with a minimum of bloodshed. Kindly don’t distort my words.
Now, as to the Irgun, I would object to your characterization of it as a terrorist gang. Terrorist gangs try their best to kill as many civilians as possible. The Irgun posted signs and broadcast warnings in Hebrew, English and Arabic warning civilians away from areas where they would be operating against the British soldiers.
They also did this with regards to the King David Hotel, but the officer in command chose to ignore those warnings and refused to evacuate the hotel, which was of major military importance, because that’s where the British kept their intelligence files on Etzel, the Hagana (which also took part in the operation) and Lehi (whom you call the “Stern Gang” after their leader Moshe Stern, murdered by the British CID after he surrendered and while unarmed).
They also did this with regards to the operation at Deir Yassin. A sound truck was placed in front of the gate and announced on loudspeaker in Arabic that the IDF (comprised of the amalgamated forces of the three main militant groups) would be entering the city, and advising civilians to evacuate, and that a truck would be provided to conduct them to safety. 200 civilians took advantage of the offer, and were safely transported to the Old City of Jerusalem. The IDF encountered unexpectedly stiff resistance and had to fight house to house. That was so because a force of Iraqi irregulars were in occupation of the town and was using it as a base to choke off supplies from Tel Aviv/Jaffe to Jerusalem along the Bab ulWad Road. To make a long story short, among the 145 Iraqi combatants killed at Deir Yassin, 105 civilian Arabs were also found dead. That’s the whole story. The purpose of IDF designs on Deir Yassin was to secure the upper hill for a small craft landing strip, NOT to massacre any civilians, but to save the civilians stuck in West and South Jerusalem without water or food due to the constant marauding of convoys along the Bab ulWad road.
“The Irgun and Stern gang were such ‘heroes’ to the Jews that major Jews like Ben Gurion and the Haganah worked with the British to hunt them down. Why?. Because most Jews in Palestine, contrary to post 1948 myth, did not agree with the terrorism of the two groups and supported a peaceful settlement.”
Why, because Ben Gurion was an egotistical snot, who didn’t care a fig for the Jews being murdered wholesale because they were kept out of refuge in the “Jewish Homeland” thanks to the White Paper, and kept out of refuge even in neutral countries, thanks in part to British lobbying efforts. The British “peaceful settlement” that he was so eager to lap up like a dog did not include lifting immigration restrictions, so as far as the Irgun was concerned, it was no-go. Ben Gurion asked both Etzel and Lehi to put a stop on all operations against the British. Begin and Meridor refused, but the Lehi-ites agreed. Therefore, the Irgun was mercilessly informed on and hounded by the Hagana throughout 1944, while the Lehi enjoyed the Hagana’s protection DESPITE their murder of Lord Moynh. They did that behind the back of the Irgun, which as a result immediately severed all ties with Lehi.
But the bottom line is, Ben Gurion through his flunky Rudolph Kastner collaborated with the Nazis in the destruction of Hungarian Jewry, because they didn’t want any of “that kind of Jew” in Israel, i.e., Haredim. They are the reason that Haredim in Israel hate and despise Zionism. When the Nazis made an offer to spare Hungarian Jewry in exchange for trucks and other non-military supplies, they did their best to make sure that the offer didn’t even get a hearing, including having the representative of the Jewish Agency to whom Eichman made it committed to a mad house. They are the ones who organized a campaign to deceive Hungarian Jews into believing they were merely being sent to a work farm.
The Irgun and Lehi, on the other hand, did everything they could to smuggle Jews into Israel under the noses of the British, and to shake off the yoke of tyranny so that Jews could finally immigrate freely. That was the cause of their revolt (see Menahem Begin’s Revolt and Yaakov Meridor’s Arucha Hi Haderech Leheirut [never translated, I fear]), and immigration was not even being discussed at these “peaceful negotiations”. Ben Gurion was fine with the mass slaughter of those embarassing garlic-breathed Jews from Eastern Europe. All he cared about was that there should be some sort of Jewish State, and he should be its head. These are your “good Jews”? I might visit Ben Gurion’s grave the next time I need a pissoir.
Menahem Begin and the Irgun, on the other hand, were heroes in every sense of the word. For Lehi, I carry no brief.
As for the British, Lin Yutang sums up my attitude nicely. Britons are good people, fair, decent people, but during their period of empire, like the ancient Greeks and Romans before them, when given a choice between empire and liberty, they have on occasion made the easy choice rather than the right one. America is little better in that regard. The USSR was a good deal worse.
‘Scotsman, we’ve been over this and over this. At least stop bringing up issues I’ve already addressed. Either my answers satisfied you, or they did not. But I see no reason why I must be compelled to repeat them.’
Because, your ladyship, this is a forum. You keep stating certain things, and I will reply with a contrary post. Thats how it works, dear. Anyone else reading can then make up their own mind who is right or wrong. You keep peddling the crap you do about the Irgun and Stern and I will reply.
I am never going to let you post what you do without reply, in the interests of fairness. People here MUST be allowed to get another point of view.
‘Now, as to the Irgun, I would object to your characterization of it as a terrorist gang.’
They were terrorists. End of. They bombed and killed civilians, British, Jewish and Arab.
It was the Irgun who captured, tortured and then boobytrapped the bodies of two unarmed British soldiers.
It was the Irgun who bombed the King David Hotel.
It was the Irgun who bombed Jerusalem railway station.
It was the Irgun who bombed the British Embassy in Rome.
It was the Irgun who bombed the Officers Club in Jerusalem.
It was the Irgun who attacked police stations all across Palestine, murdering many policemen.
And of course, they bombed amd murdered many British military targets and men and women.
They did exactly what the IRA had done 1916-1923, 1938-1939, and would do again for nearly three decades, and a handful of IRA fanatics STILL do. And they did exactly what the EOKA and Mau-Mau would do in Cyprus and Kenya to the British in the next decade. And only those who were fanatical supporters of those two groups wouldnt agree that the EOKA and Mau’s were terrorists.
By ANY definition, the Irgun were terrorists.
Warnings?. The IRA and many terrorists, like ETA, gave and give warnings. Are you seriously trying to suggest that makes them NOT terrorists?. Seriously?. What makes them so if they are Irish or Basque or Arab, or Greek, or black African, but not if they were Jewish?. The argument is farcical. Utterly farcical.
‘They also did this with regards to the King David Hotel, but the officer in command chose to ignore those warnings and refused to evacuate the hotel, which was of major military importance, because that’s where the British kept their intelligence files on Etzel, the Hagana (which also took part in the operation) and Lehi (whom you call the “Stern Gang” after their leader Moshe Stern, murdered by the British CID after he surrendered and while unarmed).’
The Irgun gave warnings to the FRENCH. Begin only started wittering on about British warnings in 1979.
And whilst the hotel may have been a military base (of sorts), it was still a civilian hotel, and the attack murdered many innocent men and women, Jewish amongst them.
Your mental gymnastics to try and defend and justify the King David attack and the Irgun is frankly disgusting.
Imagine if I came on here and tried the same type of argument about WTC 1993, the USS Cole, Oklahoma or even Sept 11th?.
‘Menahem Begin and the Irgun, on the other hand, were heroes in every sense of the word.’.
No, they were not. They were murdering fanatics and terrorists not worthy of respect.
‘
Do you have a map of that American 'empire'?
“Because, your ladyship, this is a forum. You keep stating certain things, and I will reply with a contrary post. Thats how it works, dear. Anyone else reading can then make up their own mind who is right or wrong. You keep peddling the crap you do about the Irgun and Stern and I will reply.”
If you’re falsely identifying me as female is an honest mistake, I will overlook it. If it’s meant to insult me personally, that speaks volumes about you but says very little about me, so I’ll spend no more time on it.
Yes, this is a forum. But in this forum, I said that the King David Hotel was a masterstroke, ending the British Mandate with a minimum of bloodshed. You misinterpreted that to refer to the entire conflict and rehash issues that I did not bring up in that post, and already answered in others. Sorry, but that’s not cricket.
“They bombed and killed civilians, British, Jewish and Arab.”
Restricting my answers to the revolt in Mandatory Israel, the British CID tortured and murdered prisoners, including callow boys whose only crime was to put up posters on walls. The British Mandate kept Jewish refugees from entering Israel, not murdering them directly, but leaving it to the Germans and their henchmen to do the dirty work. The British officers of the Arab League bombed the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and sat passively as the Arabs they were supposed to command massacred men, women and children in Gush Etzion. The British Mandate sat idly by while 67 Jews were murdered under their noses in Hevron.
By your definition, the British Mandate was a terrorist gang, and so were the British officers of the Arab League. When a governing authority turns against those whom it’s supposed to govern, it is legitimate for the people turned against to wage war against it. Thus, I can’t regard the prison guards, CID officers, and policemen killed by the Irgun as anything other than representatives of a hostile occupying force, and as such they were fair game in a revolt.
“Warnings?. The IRA and many terrorists, like ETA, gave and give warnings. Are you seriously trying to suggest that makes them NOT terrorists?”
Not that isolated fact standing without others. But terrorism as it’s understood these days means organizations that wage war by deliberately targeting civilians for no legitimate military purpose. Issuing warnings so as to avoid harming civilians accrues as evidence that this was not the purpose of the Irgun in its tactics. Not a prima facia case, but evidence.
The fact that civilians also got hurt and killed during the course of attacks on targets of military value, as you correctly state, does not in and of itself make the Irgun a terrorist organization, either. Was the US a terrorist organization because it bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Civilians were killed. There are no wars fought without killing civilians.
The question to be asked when judging whether or not an attack is terrorist or merely war-making is what is the goal of the attack? To kill as many civilians as possible, and thereby force political concessions, or to accomplish a military goal? By military goal, I mean the ability of the military acted against to wage war or control a region.
Another question to be asked is, does the attacker abuse trust? Getting onto a bus posing as a pregnant woman when really all one has is a bomb in the oven; or boarding a plane disguised as a fellow passenger when you really want to take over the passenger plane, convert it into a missile and ram it into a public building without giving the people in the building any indication that it is not a passenger plane; all these are terrorist acts. They are abuses of trust.
A final criteria is whether you are doing what you reasonably can to minimize civilian casualties. Issuing warnings is evidence of this last. Not wantonly slaughtering civilians or even soldiers who are no longer a threat, who have surrendered, is another.
Now, I understand that as a veteran of the British military, you have some strong feelings in this matter. As a naturalized citizen of Israel, so do I. But let’s at least maintain some civil rules of engagement.
Certainly. It now has 57 states and a few territories, and dominates the globe economically. But back in the day, there were these Indians, you see...and also these Southern states that wanted to secede, and also Cuba from 1898 on, and many other places where American rule was not appreciated, and as is always the case when one rules over large swaths of territory, there is a choice to make between liberty and empire. It’s never an easy choice, and rarely clear cut. And I’d like to say as a recovering American that the American empire in which I grew up always chose liberty over empire, but I know that I can’t. So I’ll settle for saying that the US of A did a little better than Britania and a lot better than the USSR.
I didn't realize you were reading from 0bama's geography notes.
But back in the day, there were these Indians, you see...and also these Southern states that wanted to secede, and also Cuba from 1898 on,
Consequences of unwanted wars.
and many other places where American rule was not appreciated
Rule? Our problem comes from not finishing wars. Consequences of unwanted wars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.