But not far. My blog is moving to my updated website. Nothing else will change, and I’ll copy posts here for a time till I get used to it. I hope you will too. To make it easy for you go to my Blog
Archive for the ‘Justice’ Category
Hi Dave, (Response in Red)
Again, thank you for allowing my post to stand! I do so because you make important, but, to my mind, inadequate points. You seem only to be able to see things from the perspective of Zionist propaganda, and I suggest your responses betray a strange lack of knowledge for someone who is clearly intelligent and has done much research.
You ask the important question; “is it seriously your position that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is justified by European anti-Semitism?”
Posting this link because Robert Cohen is spot on.
Last evening, Nov. 7th 2017, people gathered at London’s Royal Albert Hall to celebrate the Balfour Declaration of 2nd Nov. 1917, as ‘Partners in this great Enterprise’. Christians and Jews together celebrating the creation of modern Israel and the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population. Maybe some of my readers will be upset by that description but if we are honest it is difficult to put any other interpretation of the facts.
Gathering inside, a mighty congregation; well, actually not so mighty. One member of ‘Raised Voices’ commented that there didn’t seem to be many people going in. I’d calculate no more than 2000 including performers, (a 600 member choir from Denmark?), in a venue that can hold over 5,000.
Outside? A very mixed bunch. Handing our leaflets was difficult, especially when RAH security backed by a massive police presence insisted we could not hand out leaflets on private property. When I was able, most people refused, were not interested in a Palestinian Christian viewpoint. Some, did take leaflets and some, a very few, seemed genuinely interested in a different perspective; they were mostly younger people.
There were pro-Israel demonstrators outside as well, including the couple from Ireland who’d ‘entertained’ us on Saturday, (not sure whether they’re sectionable, but probably harmless). One woman and her friend became quite aggressivly verbally angry when she read the banner I was carrying. The text ran as follows: ‘Biblical Christians reject imperialist, exceptionalist, Zionism. Exceptionalism is racism, “There is no distinction …” If God will not, we must not.’
What infuriated her, I believe, is that I was, ‘standing on her ground’ – ‘Bible-believing’ Christians take all God’s word seriously, and that means Zionism, the rest of us must be ‘liberals’ who don’t really believe anything and can’t really be Christian. So when I say I am a bible-believing Christian she refuses to believe it, I must really be a ‘toy’ of the ‘Muslim extremists’ who were chantinf ‘Free Palestine’ just a few metres away. More to say maybe, later, but now it’s time for a little relaxation and a coffee.
I have now managed to watch the documentary by Jane Corbin, and I cannot make up my mind. Is she criminally ignorant or criminally biased?
She is virtually explicit in saying that Jewish terror was in response to Arab violence, but that was not the case, this is very poor journalism. The Haganah, a Jewish para-military organisation, was formed in 1921, ostensibly to protect Jewish settlements from Arab attack. Irgun, an extremist offshoot was operative from as early as 1931. That is not to suggest that all Arabs were quiescent at the massive Jewish immigration, but most only became concerned as the numbers multiplied.
Corbin claims, as do most, that the Zionists accepted the UN partition plan whereas the Arabs did not. First, why should the Palestinian Arabs accept partition of theirown land. By Ben Gurion’s own admission to the UN, by 1947 they had only purchased 7% of the land. But second, the Zionists did not ‘accept’ the partition, they simply ensured that the Arabs took the blame. Zionism, as is clear from the history, especially 1967 on, never intended to settle for less than ‘Eretz Israel’ all the land.
Jane Corbin claims, as do most others, that upon the declaration of the Jewish state on 15th May 1948 the Arab nations invaded. That seems to me the ‘personification’ of casuistry! Arabs, as Palestinians represented 66% of the population, it was their land, how could they invade it? As to the other Arab nations, I’ve covered their history elsewhere. Here it is simply worth pointing out that they were all relatively recent creations, despite a long history, and most had British troops stationed withing their borders. To act before British forces left Palestine would put them in danger of being at war with Britain. That would not have seemed sensible.
So much wrong with this programme, so one final comment. It is not necessary to justify Hamas but to point out that, had Israel taken its opportunities for peace, had Israel responded democratically to Palestinian concerns it is likely Hamas would never have been created. Formed in 1987-8, 40 years after the loss of 78% of Palestinian land, Hamas, regarded by some as a creature of Israel’s policy of ‘divide and rule’ is the violent mirror image of Israel’s military but without their tanks, guns, missiles and planes.
Poor journalism that I have come to expect from the BBC.
This day, 2nd November, marks the one hundredth anniversary of the letter from Arthur Balfour, Britain’s Foreign Secretary in 1917, to Lord Rothschild as representing British Jewry. It is an indictment of Britain’s present government and many opposition members of parliament that they will be celebrating this event.
There is little for which to be proud. A degree of protection for Jews? Maybe, but at what cost. Might the Nazi holocaust have been averted had Zionism not been on the rise? That question may be impossible to answer, but it is well known that Nazis and Zionists wanted much the same thing: Jews out of Europe.
The Nazis didn’t much care where they went, it was Zionism that focussed on Palestine. Not because it was the best place in terms of space and population but because it was the only place that would have attracted the bulk of European Jewry, who, in the main, were not interested in Zionism.
Britain’s part in this, dating back to 19th century evangelicalism and beyond, should not be underplayed and should certainly not be celebrated. Apologising for the ‘sins of the fathers’ may seem pointless. It is unless it is accompanied by genuine action to put right the wrongs committed in our name. Britain and America together share major responsibility for the mess that is the Middle East. It is our duty to help people of goodwill – and they are there – to begin putting things right. If our leaders will not then we, the people, must.